> >Fritz,
> >
> >I can clarify the issues in the proposed David Plummer land trade and the
> >Linear Park Task Force's position on the trade. David Plummer, in a letter
> >sent to the City Council, proposed trading the land he owns along the creek
> >for land the City owns adjacent to Styner Avenue. The council was very
> >concerned about the idea of trading land that can be developed easily for
> >land in the flood plain on an equal square foot basis. Moreover, if this
> >trade was made, the City would loose the potential income that would be
> >gained from selling their land; proceeds which would go to reducing the
> >anticpated overrun of the Styner Avenue widening. When the Linear Park Task
> >Force was asked to make a recommendation, they responded to the council with
> >the following memo:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Amanda,
>
> Pardon my bluntness, but this is total baloney. The trade was to involve
> land that Dave Plummer already holds an easement on to put a road back to
> his property. His interest was in holding the title "free and clear" in
> order to dedicate the road to the city for a public road. As it is, it will
> be a private road, a driveway. And he can put in that driveway right now.
> He owns the right to put it in already.
>
> The land that the City would have traded will have Dave Plummer's road on it
> ANYWAY. He holds an easement on that property to put a road on it.
>
> The land that was in question has NO COMMERCIAL VALUE. None. Zero. Zip.
> Would you buy a piece of land that had an ironclad easement on it to become
> the road to a developer's property? Would you buy your neighbor's driveway?
> You can't build on it. You can't farm it. It will be a road no matter
> what. Someone in the city is being less than truthful if there is talk of
> the parcel with Plummer's easement as being valuable.
>
> Likewise, the floodplain land that was offered by Plummer is not without
> value to him. He will fill it in (affecting flood safety, and wildlife
> habitat) and build on it. Plus, some of it has value as the required
> setback on the north side of his property.
>
> The trade that was offered was a clever, win-win situation. Both parties
> traded land of little value for land of higher value. Unfortunately, there
> seems to be a cover up of the true financial situation of the Styner Ave
> project. Someone wants to keep this property on the income side of the
> balance sheet for as long as possible. Of course, the City will NEVER get
> much (if any) actual cash for their land, but maybe the truth can be covered
> up for a few more years. By then no one will remember or care.
>
> And sadly, all of Moscow will now suffer from this cover up.
>
> Fritz
>I was at the city council meeting the other night when they denide the
land swap. If this land which was perchased for approx. 89,400.00 and now
has a suposed value of approx. 139,000.00, is worth nothing and the
surrounding neighbors aren'ty interested in any type of swap what then do
you suppose the city is going to do with this property. ON one hand it
would be nice for the swap to occure because of the linear park project,
on the other hand however, a giant developement i.e. apartment complex is
going to be even less atractive than what is already there.
I feel like I am walking on the top of the fence here, please someone
give me more info. so that I can decide which side to jump to.
Kay Sodorff-Henson >