Development of new Grand Forks homes depends on a few landowners
November 24, 2012 at 11:15 pm in Grand Forks Herald
If Grand Forks’ problem is not enough housing, its solution depends on a few people who control the land on the city’s outskirts. “We’re just running out of land that’s platted and plotted,” said Dana Sande, a City Council member. Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
29
No to eminent domain. The market works. If they make enough money they will develop their land. When a town used eminent domain to allow a shopping center because it wanted the tax revenue, I began to think the Tea Party types might have a point. That particular power of government is reserved for the public good, not fiscal gain. Those are two very different things.
The article did hint at what might work: get rid of the ridiculous assessments. Infrastructure benefits everyone, therefore everyone should pay for it. I had never heard of a special assessment before moving here, and it goes a long way towards explaining why people do not trust government. I pay taxes for roads, but if I want the one in front of my house paved, I have to pay more. Same with city sewers. It is completely unfathomable how short sighted this system is.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
10
North is an option…but it won’t make bajillionaires out of the existing developers. Clearly, that is not an appropriate action if we are to continue to sustain those developers that are already in power, and who refuse to be interviewed. Profiteers typically don’t like to be held up for scrutiny.
The best solution is to get Government OUT of the housing industry. Since there is NOT ONE person on the Blue Ribbon Commission that has a history of advocating for the Taxpayer, it is clear that the whole point of the Blue Ribbon Commission is to “invent ‘n’ present” reasons to unethically pour tax dollars into the developers’ and the construction-company-owner’s (real-estate industry bigshots) pockets. In other words, the Blue Ribbon Commission is nothing but a propaganda tool designed to cloud the thinking of folks who are going to get stuck paying the bill for socializing the housing market in Grand Forks. Open the floodgates, Grand Forks taxpayers are going to help buy homes for strangers. Might as well give us Useldingers, and Crary’s, and Greenberg’s direct-deposit account numbers.
Using the power of Government to counteract the power of the oligopolist developers is a double-misuse of power; the taxpayer gets taken to the cleaners to guarantee obscene real-estate profits, while at the same time eliminating all the risk associated with legitimate business.
First thing I’d do is cancel the business license of any real-estate professional that isn’t current with their property-tax payments, including the property-taxes owed on their “inventory” of property or speculation homes. If industry professionals can’t budget for real-estate tax payments year-by-year, how can we expect common people to do the same?
Then I’d assure that not one dime of tax money goes to developers or construction companies. They chose that business, let them accept the full risks–they’re obviously going to expect the full rewards as they sell their inventory.
If you change the way that taxpayers cover the cost of infrastructure, HOW will you prevent existing residents from being charged twice? They’ve already paid for the infrastructure near their own homes; now you want them to pay for infrastructure city-wide. New residents get subsidized under this scenario, while all the existing residents get screwed. I’m not saying there’s no way to make it a fair transition–but I’m not smart enough to think how that might happen.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
8
I’d like to make a “correction” to what I wrote above:
Using the power of Government TAXATION of the MAJORITY to counteract the power of the oligopolist developers is a double-misuse of power; the taxpayer gets taken to the cleaners to guarantee obscene real-estate profits, while at the same time eliminating all the risk associated with legitimate business.
There are other, legitimate ways for Government to counteract the power held by the developers; taxing the general public to subsidize housing for “the few” is improper.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
4
The State of North Dakota and local governments can only take property for a public purpose. The North Dakota legislature enacted specific statutory language to prevent the use of eminent domain from being used for “economic development”; “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public use or a public purpose does not include public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment, or general economic health.” North Dakota has a specific list of reasons eminent domain can be exercised and encouraging affordable housing is well outside that list. For reference, read chapter 23-15 of the North Dakota Century Code. Also you need to keep in mind that eminent domain still requires the property to be purchased for its fair market value at its highest and best use which means if the city could miraculously avoid the specific prohibition against using eminent domain it would have to pay a boat load of money to buy the land. In summary, eminent domain would be neither legal or practical.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
2
Type – it is chapter 32-15.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
“The industrial character of the north side has blocked housing expansion there.”
Is the problem merely that the is zoned industrial? Or do stakeholders assume, probably correctly, that residential development adjacent to industry will be less desirable for potential homebuyers?
There’s plenty of land just a mile or two north of Gateway/N. Washington on either side of N. Washington and N Columbia. There already an interstate on/off ramp, boat access at Riverside, and the Humane Society dog park up there, too. But the otherwise informative infographic just pastes “Landlocked” over this area.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
2
I agree. North is an option
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
5
Knoxjimbo, so you’re saying rather than whine about there being no affordable housing options in GF for folks, they could build on the North side as people assume that is a less desirable area and the houses would sell for less. Wow to bad the city couldn’t think of that.
Lets develop the North side, I’ll pay $140,000 for a house there rather than an overpriced one south of 32nd ave.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
4
Maybe if they want an unbiased opinion they shouldn’t have two of the land owner/developers on the commission. Just my opinion.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
7
Schurkey: you simply budget for how much your infrastructure costs & mill levy it out. This is not rocket science. Your assertion that everyone does not benefit from infrastructure improvements is false. The tide raises everybody. When you drive down a special assessment street on the way to a neighborhood park to drop someone off for a soccer/baseball/hockey game do you pay a toll?
Infrastructure is a legitimate function of government. Wellness centers & expensive sports complexes are not. They are decidedly “nice but not needed;” yet everyone is comfortable with everyone paying for them whether or not they ever use them. Do you see the cognitive dissonance of this situation?
In AZ several cities got out of the fire business. They contracted it out to a private company. You either pay the $500 yearly membership fee or you receive a bill for the total cost of the response. If you are talking a structure fire response: two or three engines, a ladder truck, ladder tender, Batallion Chief, & rescue; you are talking a $5000 – $10000 bill. If there is a real fire & those assets are tied up for several hours the bill can easily exceed $100,000.
There have been several stories of homeowners who were forced to file bankruptcy over a house fire. Insurance will not cover these charges.
To me, special assessments are the same type of scam. Every government spends money. That is a given. The question is what do you want your tax dollars spent on?
Like or Dislike:
9 
8
“Schurkey: you simply budget for how much your infrastructure costs & mill levy it out. This is not rocket science. Your assertion that everyone does not benefit from infrastructure improvements is false. The tide raises everybody. When you drive down a special assessment street on the way to a neighborhood park to drop someone off for a soccer/baseball/hockey game do you pay a toll?”
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT when you say that “everybody” benefits from infrastructure improvements.
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT when you say that Grand Forks City Government has gone way beyond it’s authority in providing luxuries while ignoring necessities.
There is a flaw in your proposal; however. Folks that have already paid for infrastructure under one format, should not have to pay for someone else’s infrastructure when the format changes.
The existing homeowners have already paid–or are in the process of paying for–the infrastructure (residential streets, sewer lift stations, water mains, high-traffic-volume streets, sidewalks, and other items) nearest their homes and businesses. To dump that system, and install a system where all costs fall on all property-tax payers will subsidize new development. Existing property owners who have paid off their special assessments will now get hit paying for new development. This is NOT FAIR to existing property owners, but it’s an outright bargain for new developments in town.
Until you figure out a way to make this process equitable for the existing property owners, I’m NOT in favor of having “everyone’ pay for “everything”.
As a secondary point, when infrastructure costs are split city-wide, you’d better assure that bullet-proof standards are in place, or the “rich and powerful” end of town will have wide concrete streets and big water mains; while the “struggling” end of town will have narrow, tar streets with potholes, leaking water pipes, and substandard sewers. This sort of inequity is already apparent–but at least the folks who have crappy streets in their neighborhood aren’t paying for someone else’s neighborhood to get new streets.
Like or Dislike:
15 
4
I am not sure there is a fair & equitable way to change over. That said, keeping a system that does not meet the city’s needs because of fairness issues makes absolutely no sense. It is simply digging the hole deeper.
I could see some form of reduced mill levy until the house changes hands. Once that happens the new owners get brought up to speed.
GF is more stable than most cities but people move all the time, even if it is just an upgrade.
My parents bought their house in 1968. My mother still lives there. That is a rarity anymore.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Rechecked my figures with Rural Metro fire. $100,000 was way too high. Average structure fire costs $25,000 – $30,000. There have been $100,000 fires but they were commercial
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
I still don’t get it? Land is still cheaper in north dakota than many other parts of the country. What is stopping the expansion of grand forks?
Like or Dislike:
9 
7
Eminent domain was intended for taking property for a public purpose. Those purposes could be for a road (interstate highway, etc.), land to build a public school on and the like.
In this case, Grand Forks looks to expand to the south. Since private housing is involved, then the free market should be involved. Offer to pay so much to the landowner. If the landowner(s) refuse, then that is the right of the landowner.
In my opinion, this commission should look at property that is already in city limits. If the city could buy property in developed neighborhoods to develop housing, that would eliminate older buildings and let newer housing units to be built. Older buildings with asbestos, lead paint and less energy efficiency could be replaced with newer structures that are more energy efficient, handicapped accessible, etc.
If you expand housing south of the city too much, then it will cost money to build another park, fire station, sewer lift station and the like. That is where the assessments would come in.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Hugo’s in Jamestown was built on land owned by Leevers and when Leevers wouldn’t sell the land to Hugo’s eminent domain was used to purchase the land. You can’t tell me that it wouldn’t apply here bacause it has been used in the past
Like or Dislike:
9 
8
Source?
According to this, the judgment allowing Jamestown to exercise eminent domain over Leever’s was reversed by the ND Supreme Court:
http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/opinions/950328.htm
So I don’t think your example is valid. Also, that was a case of the city attempting to take blighted and/or underused industrial or commercial property, not agricultural property.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
The SCOTUS says its legal. According to the post above the Century Code has made it illegal.
I think it is a very bad precedent. This is another case where I disagree with the SCOTUS. We are a country built on the notion of private property (that is why the government cannot force you to house troops in your house and why the PD needs a search warrant). Using temporary economic gain as a reason to force people to give up their private property is a very slippery slope.
One we have no reason to go down.
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
I have one word to say about all of this: UP. Why are developers so resistant to building mid-rise buildings in this town? Granted, this is anecdotal, but Columbia Towers, the 10-story condominum on the south side has been extremely popular. Condos are rarely for sale and have appreciated in value at roughly the same rate as other homes.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
High rise apartments/condos could be an option.
Of course, there are considerations, such as aircraft flight ways and the fire department having a long enough elevating platform and/or ladder.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
Both good points…but they must have been addressed when Columbia Towers and the Canad Inn tower were built.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
GF can only grow south, SW & west. The river is on the east & the alkali flats are to the north where you can’t grow grass or trees. The Fargo Forum Communications owners, the Marcels, have plans for a huge planned development west of 29 & south of 32nd. I believe they are originally from GF.
Like or Dislike:
9 
6