10-30-2014, 01:46 PM
(10-30-2014, 08:55 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote:(10-29-2014, 08:44 PM)MacBerry Wrote: Three corporate/owner reasons:
1) Parking lots earn revenue
2) Better tax issues for a working piece of property than a vacant lot.
3) Land will still accrue value for a future building site (or part of a bigger building site)
1) The parking lots the city will set up will be free, zero revenue.
2) If this is a city owned lot, it does not benefit at all from any additional tax revenue.
I made my point earlier about why I can understand the move, but those two points are likely moot on the matter at hand.
Does anyone know if this is a city piece of land or a private owner?
Just curious ...