ducklite
<font color=teal>Take the Poly, it's fabulous!<br>
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2000
Charade said:But according to the article, it WILL benefit the local govt if they win their appeal to get the jury's $17.9 million figure tossed out and back down to the $4 million the govt thinks it's worth. If it is indeed worth $17.9 million and the govt only has to pay $4 million, they are getting it for 25 cents on the dollar.
How much is 75 acres worth in that part of the state? Is it buildable?
The $17.9 figure came out of their assertations to a misinformed jury that they were running a farming business on the property, thus much of that figure was compensation for "business disruption." They weren't for all practical purposes running a business. They never grew crops, and a few horses, chickens, and cats don't constitute a family farm. They were making their living giving pony rides and doing "haunted hayrides" (no hay, no haunt, just an empty field) in the fall. That's more of a carnival than a farm.
The land *would* be buildable, but under the court ruling it is only to be used as open space recreation. No building other than perhaps a nature trail or perhaps a small playground area. In other words no developer is going to get their hands on it and give it value. If it were "buildable" land being sold to a developer it would be worth $15-30 million or more based on a couple of comps I was able to locate in the general area. But because it's not buildable land, the value is negligable, and $4 million is generous.
They should have been smart and gone for a rezoning from R20 to R1 or R2 (which they would have easily gotten!) and sold that land to a developer for a fortune!
Anne