01-31-2024, 05:31 PM
(01-31-2024, 02:12 PM)westwardloo Wrote:(01-31-2024, 10:50 AM)tomh009 Wrote: I think very few cities--at least in North America--would do that. It's a big investment in land, demolition/environmental and planning, with an uncertain price that they can eventually sell for. Yes, results would be better but it's really unlikely, here or elsewhere.
Funny enough if cities still developed parcels of land this way, they probably would have made more money on land value then they have on development fees in the last 30 years.
Absolutely. Such a plan would almost certainly, overall, make the city more money if well run. But well run would involve some individual projects likely sometimes losing money, returns are only good with some risk. But as soon as the city lost money even once on this scheme heads would roll, voters would be outraged, and it would be reduced to only making investments with guaranteed return. Guaranteed return projects would not be nearly so profitable, nor would it involve taking on a project like this property.