Bad news day in Sacramento

In article .com,
wet the bed, took a drink from the toilet and
scrawled:

(snipped)

BACK ON TOPIC, I have no problem if the FAA demands the profits if the
airfield goes away. FAA made the investment after all. Furthermore,
this stance will help us keep airports active, and we need all the
tools we can get to counter these people that build/move next door to
airfields and then complain.

Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.


By that ass(umption), then let'$ $ell all the park$ and turn them over
to developer$ -- highe$t and be$t u$e of the land, after all!

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article .com,
wet the bed, took a drink from the toilet and
scrawled:

(snipped)

BACK ON TOPIC, I have no problem if the FAA demands the profits if the
airfield goes away. FAA made the investment after all. Furthermore,
this stance will help us keep airports active, and we need all the
tools we can get to counter these people that build/move next door to
airfields and then complain.

Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.


By that ass(umption), then let'$ $ell all the park$ and turn them over
to developer$ -- highe$t and be$t u$e of the land, after all!

And schools. They produce no revenue and are a huge tax burden.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in news:bzTIf.29175$Jd.14562
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:


"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article .com,
wet the bed, took a drink from the toilet and
scrawled:

(snipped)

BACK ON TOPIC, I have no problem if the FAA demands the profits if the
airfield goes away. FAA made the investment after all. Furthermore,
this stance will help us keep airports active, and we need all the
tools we can get to counter these people that build/move next door to
airfields and then complain.

Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.


By that ass(umption), then let'$ $ell all the park$ and turn them over
to developer$ -- highe$t and be$t u$e of the land, after all!

And schools. They produce no revenue and are a huge tax burden.

And the neighborhood you live in. After all, a mall or Big Box
store would bring in far more tax revenue than your paltry
property taxes.

And it's already happening.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Skywise wrote:
"Dave Stadt" wrote in news:bzTIf.29175$Jd.14562

Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.


By that ass(umption), then let'$ $ell all the park$ and turn them over
to developer$ -- highe$t and be$t u$e of the land, after all!

And schools. They produce no revenue and are a huge tax burden.

And the neighborhood you live in. After all, a mall or Big Box
store would bring in far more tax revenue than your paltry
property taxes.

And it's already happening.

There are ample empty Big Box vacancies around suburban Chicago. The
scheme from
the Alan Keyes disciples is to declare a suburban downtown area
"blighted" (usually containing 1950's and earlier buildings) and issue
mega $Millions in bonds to buy up the
blighted real estate (at a hefty price) and resell to connected
developers for your typical yuppie condo/$tarbucks "improvements".
When the taxes from the "redevelopment zone" fail to pay off the bonds,
all the town HOMEOWNERS are hit with property tax increases to fund the
mess.

And these politicians are the fiscal conservatives.

JG

wrote in message
ups.com...

There are ample empty Big Box vacancies around suburban Chicago. The
scheme from
the Alan Keyes disciples is to declare a suburban downtown area
"blighted" (usually containing 1950's and earlier buildings) and issue
mega $Millions in bonds to buy up the
blighted real estate (at a hefty price) and resell to connected
developers for your typical yuppie condo/$tarbucks "improvements".

Okay!

When the taxes from the "redevelopment zone" fail to pay off the bonds,
all the town HOMEOWNERS are hit with property tax increases to fund the
mess.

Figured how?

No revenue from the "resell"?

Matt Barrow wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

There are ample empty Big Box vacancies around suburban Chicago. The
scheme from
the Alan Keyes disciples is to declare a suburban downtown area
"blighted" (usually containing 1950's and earlier buildings) and issue
mega $Millions in bonds to buy up the
blighted real estate (at a hefty price) and resell to connected
developers for your typical yuppie condo/$tarbucks "improvements".

Okay!

When the taxes from the "redevelopment zone" fail to pay off the bonds,
all the town HOMEOWNERS are hit with property tax increases to fund the
mess.

Figured how?

When the "tax increment" fails to pay off that year's bond payment, the
gov. levies
prop. taxes for the difference.

No revenue from the "resell"?

Not enough to cover the gov. purchase price, but some places handled it
free market style:

August 25, 1985
"For homeowners in the subdivisions, such as Oak Brook residents John
Nichols and Perry Johansen, the opportunity to sell their property to a
commercial developer is something of a dream come true. Both struck a
deal
with Vantage Cos., a national developer.
``We thought we`d have to retire in this house,`` said Johansen`s wife,
Linda. ``Now, we`ll be able to afford a bigger home, which the children
need
(the Johansens have two daughters), and a bigger yard, which the dogs
need.
We feel very blessed with this whole deal.``

John Nichols, who lives down the block and around the corner, says his
brick split-level house probably would bring about $90,000 on the
residential market, but he stands to make twice that by selling his lot
to Vantage for $12 a square foot. What`s more, he can keep the house if
he wants by moving it to another site, an idea he plans to investigate.
He also can sell it to a
salvage firm that will strip the house, or he can just walk away and
leave it to the bulldozer.

Vantage has negoitated contracts on all 16 parcels, including 15
houses,
that make up a 5.5-acre site. The company`s objective is to build a
five-
story, 185,000-square-foot office building, said Robert Sholiton,
managing
partner of Vantage`s Chicago-area office.
``Rezoning and redevelopment make sense because time has proved that
the
existing land use is inappropriate,`` Sholiton said. ``Increases in
traffic,
noise and pollution have created undesirable living conditions for
single-
family homes.``

And no TIF funds involved, amazing...JG

wrote in
ups.com:


Skywise wrote:
"Dave Stadt" wrote in news:bzTIf.29175$Jd.14562

Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple
economics.


By that ass(umption), then let'$ $ell all the park$ and turn them
over to developer$ -- highe$t and be$t u$e of the land, after all!

And schools. They produce no revenue and are a huge tax burden.

And the neighborhood you live in. After all, a mall or Big Box
store would bring in far more tax revenue than your paltry
property taxes.

And it's already happening.

There are ample empty Big Box vacancies around suburban Chicago. The
scheme from
the Alan Keyes disciples is to declare a suburban downtown area
"blighted" (usually containing 1950's and earlier buildings) and issue
mega $Millions in bonds to buy up the
blighted real estate (at a hefty price) and resell to connected
developers for your typical yuppie condo/$tarbucks "improvements".
When the taxes from the "redevelopment zone" fail to pay off the bonds,
all the town HOMEOWNERS are hit with property tax increases to fund the
mess.

And these politicians are the fiscal conservatives.

JG

Actually, what I was specifically refering to is the increasing
use of imminent domain to forceably remove people from their
homes and then turning the land over to some developer for
commercial private use.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?