This sign has been sitting along Phillips to the Falls for quite awhile. While advertising property for lease is perfectly legal I question whether these developers and realtors can advertise property THEY DO NOT OWN. I’m sure they worked out some deal with the city (The city owns the property), but I still think it is bologna that they can advertise land THAT WE AS TAXPAYERS OWN. Wanna lease the property? Then buy it already and put it on the taxrolls. It would be like me running a classified in the paper for a car I have for sale, but I don’t own it. Then once I find a buyer, I go buy the car and resell it. Since when are taxpayer’s a bank? It seems in this town that’s how it works.
The more interest shown for the property by potential tenants, the quicker it gets on the tax roles.
Enough interest in leasing the property will get that toxic dirt moved out quick and buildings built.
I agree, but what I find ironic is that they claim they won’t buy the land until they know they can develop on it (due to the contaminated earth) but it hasn’t stopped them from trying to sell it to other people. It would be like being a realtor and telling a potential buyer; “I would never live in the rathole, but it seems like a nice enough place for you.”
I also want to add, that I think they are using the ‘soil’ excuse to hold off purchasing the land as long as possible. I do commend them for trying to develop the area, but, what risk are they taking? It seems they want the city to take the risk while they cash in on the benefits.
Taxpayers are not the bank but slaves to the kingdom. Similar real estate blunders are overpriced townhomes (reclamation project), the politicians home at 26th/I-229, and (soon) a 4 million dollar homeless shelter. After ‘Phillips to nowhere’, a city leaders MO has become worthless real estate ventures to feed a few corrupt developers.
GoD is right, as long as they have a working document to purchase it, there’s no issue with them marketing it.
and you’re correct as well L3wis, the soil issue isn’t a dealbreaker. If a large corporate tenant signed up, watch how fast they will clean it up.
That is what is unfortunate about the ‘contract to buy’. If someone has agreed to buy the land, then buy it. I think the city should tell them to cut a check or we are putting back on the market. I find it hard to believe that those developers are the only ones interested in buying the land.