4 ms·
I can try to find a few examples, but there are plenty of cities who steadfastly refuse to give up concessions to businesses or open up land for development on
by legitster 3y ago
I can try to find a few examples, but there are plenty of cities who steadfastly refuse to give up concessions to businesses or open up land for development on the grounds that it is being undervalued in the market.
Even in my parent's small town there is a string of derelict businesses on the main street. But the city council has way too high expectation on what value they can get for it. So rather than rezone or redevelop the property, they have let it sit vacant for 20 years and shake their fist at the skies that no one wants to scoop it up at the "market value".
- nradov 3y agoI don't understand your point. What is the zoning on those vacant properties today? What zoning change would increase their market value without seriously hurting quality of life for residents? Have any developers applied for zoning variances and been denied? Are the properties owned by the city itself, or by private entities? If the latter, eventually they will be sold at the market price and the city government will have no say in that.
- legitster 3y agoI think you have it backwards. The zoning change would be to dump "expensive" commercial real estate into cheap residential or mixed. In this case they are privately owned but basically under the receivership of the city council. This is a small town in the boonies, so there isn't anybody with the time or the capital to force through zoning variances. There being a "market price" kind of assumes that real estate is a simple commodity, but cities themselves usually excerpt some control of their own destiny. Once you move out of a desirable coastal location you generally won't take for granted the amount of effort cities take to attract jobs. So some of it is zoning, some of it is infrastructure, and some of it is raw concessions that a city demands or gives its businesses.