If we were building a parking garage now, we might have that problem–it would be more of an issue if the garage were required immediately rather than a long-term plan.
Wood: Could someone negotiate to use that parking as part of their parking requirement?
Kisela: That’s something we’d have to negotiate in a development hearing.
At some point, he adds, the price of parking would probably require charging after the garage started going up.
Bagby: Is there a limit how much we can go over an appraisal?
Kisela; You can pay less than the appraised value. To pay more than appraised value it requires a supermajority. And any purchase over a half-million requires two approvals, which we’ve gotten.
Bagby: What’s the date? “An April appraisal or even a May appraisal is not good in November” given the market–prices have stabilized below the April/May level.
And the cost isn’t just $3.125 million, because there are also Realtor’s fees and construction that puts it up to about $3.6 million.
He thanks St. Andrew’s for the offer, though he predicts “we’ll be wrestling with these choices for a long time.”
Getting back to the deal, Bagby says it doesn’t make sense to buy the Clancy land; maybe in 50 years, we will, but transportation, as Wood says, might have changed a lot. “I’m not willing to bet my kid’s future on that.” It doesn’t make sense from a business perspective, legal perspective; the policy perspective is that the city wants parking on the harbor and promotes more people, fewer cars.
The lease keeps the options open.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.