Officials: Reduce risk for Grand Forks home builders
December 12, 2012 at 2:02 pm in Grand Forks Herald
The Blue Ribbon Commission on Housing identified promoting new housing development and reducing the risk that comes with it as one of the city’s top priorities.
Continue Reading
So evidently there is a extreme shortage of homes, so where is the risk? if they develop the land they pass the cost to the home buyers. Why should taxpayers pay to increase developers profits?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
67 
1
If I want to expand my business, who do I see to eliminate my risk of doing that? Or better yet, if I simply want to engage in the business I have chosen to operate, who can I count on to eliminate the risk for me? Corporate welfare at work, folks.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
62 
0
Given that this commission is essentially made up those associated with the realty industry, it should be no surprise they’re pushing to have taxpayers subsidize them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
58 
0
Mayor Brown let the fox in the hen house.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
1
Let me get this straight, the same republicans that tell me I need to take the risk and start my own buisness are asking the local government for help (aka “entitlements”) to reduce they’re risk?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
19 
31
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
21
Exactly correct. Remember: the GOP is a firm believer in what is good for me is good for me. If free enterprise fits their bill, they are all for it. If it does not (agriculture, housing) then they are all for protectionism and a tilted playing field. This is the same group of yo-yos that said certain companies are “too big to fail.” The same list of companies that could not make their bills yet found the cash to invest heavily in GOP candidates.
Honesty, Integrity, and Consistency are not real big among the GOP
Why do you think they hate Ron Paul? He actually means what he says.
Like or Dislike:
10 
8
FN, I was with you until you mentioned Ron Paul.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
As a conservative Ron Paul was the only hope the GOP had during the last election cycle of regaining its soul.
Most modern GOPers equate conservatism with a set of social values. That is false. Conservatism is a set of economic values.
The GOP did not like Ron Paul because he is Libertarian in his beliefs: fiscally conservative but socially liberal.
Until the GOP regains its soul, they are destined to spend a great deal of time in the wilderness (at least on the national level).
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
I thought it was a pretty clever comment
Like or Dislike:
13 
4
capt, Did a group of buissness men suggest government support? Yes they did! I rest my case.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
5
A housing shortage should create the demand needed and incentive needed to build. Ever notice how the biggest land owners and developers in this city are also the two biggest real estate companies?
When I searched for a home here in Forks I found all new construction to be of very low quality for the asking price when I compared it to new construction homes in Fargo.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
0
The Blue-Ribbon Commission is a horrible joke. Brown is trying to find a third-party to take the public responsibility for recommending his goal of subsidized housing; and the City has hired consultants to split the responsibility with the Blue-Ribbon Commission.
When all is said and done, if this goes badly for Brown (we can hope!) Brown will throw the responsibility onto the B-R Commission, and the Commission will blame the consultants, and the consultants will have already cashed their paychecks.
The taxpayers will be screwed blue before, during, and after the finger-pointing and blame-ducking.
Make no mistake–the WHOLE POINT of the B-R Commission was to get subsidized housing established for mainstream housing in GF. Those of us who already have a home will be forced to help buy homes for strangers. Those of us who rent, or lease will ALSO be forced to help buy homes for strangers.
There IS no risk for developers IF the “housing crisis” is real. (It’s not.) The reality of the situation is a lack of “acceptable” profit margin in low- to medium-budget housing; and that’s due to the greed of the very people on the Commission. The developers would rather sit on the property and wait for profit margins to rise; including profit generated by accepting taxpayer-funded subsidy checks or other revenue-enhancement schemes.
In the end, this has NOTHING to do with an invented “housing crisis”, this has NOTHING to do with supply-and-demand, and this has NOTHING to do with laws and regulations. This is purely and simply PROFIT MARGINS; and the only solution possible for a Blue-Ribbon Commission made up of “social workers” and Industry Insiders is for the taxpayer to be milked like cattle to provide enhanced profits for the established “Names” in the real-estate industry.
MY solution is to let the laws of supply and demand resolve this grossly-misrepresented “crisis”; prevent Government from interfering in the real-estate business. Consideration could be given to dramatically increasing property taxes on undeveloped or minimally-developed assets around and within GF. There would then be pressure for the developers to get off their asses and DEVELOP SOMETHING. In addition, ANY real-estate professional who is delinquent in property tax payments on business assets, should have their business license revoked ten days after the payment is due. Let’s put this back on the developers where it belongs, instead of throwing it onto the taxpayer where it utterly DOES NOT belong.
While we’re at it, we should remember who began this charade that will eventually lead to the taxpayer funding guaranteed real-estate profits: His Majesty, the Corrupt Mayor Brown.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
1
Edit: Consideration could be given to dramatically increasing property taxes on undeveloped or minimally-developed assets OWNED BY REAL-ESTATE PROFESSIONALS around and within GF.
If land around or within Grand Forks is owned by a real-estate professional, the land itself is “inventory”, waiting to be turned over at a price high enough to make an “acceptable” profit. By taxing those properties higher, there’s more incentive to build and sell. Moreover, there’s less incentive for well-monied developers to buy and hold massive tracts of land with the expectation that they can prevent development until the taxpayer can be forced to pay their extortion.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
2
Absolutely correct, they are going to sell the land as commercial tax it as commercial. There is no way they are going to sell that land for ag.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
Or, the real estate monopolies withhold the tax payment until weeks before the city undertakes foreclosure proceedings.
Consider the economic growth the G.F. area would have if there were affordable lots available. Small towns in the area know that selling lots at a very low price are a great incentive to builders.
Maybe citizen cooperatives is an answer. That would be one way to compete against the monopolies.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
Right on. Its all about profit margin. Developers are holding out to make more, and these commissions are trying to convince the taxpayer they should be footing the bill.
Letter to editor for the other side of this story?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
0
You are absolutely correct. They are holding out to make more. That is what businesses do. If they hold on too long & people bypass them, then they lose their shirts. That is the market.
Giving them subsidies & tax breaks is not the market
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
“Letter to editor for the other side of this story?”
MY side of this story has been submitted to Tom Dennis a few minutes ago.
We’ll see where it goes.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/252294/group/Opinion/
Published today. Wonderfully edited. (I approve)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think Grand Forks should give developers and major land owners a little motivation:
Develop the land with affordable housing for profit AND for the good of the City, or lose the land through eminent domain for the good of the City.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
12
There is a 48 acre parcel on the North side of 32nd ave just west of Tractor Supply. The city should buy and develop it and sell the houses for a profit. There will be more housing (city happy), nobody will get a handout(taxpayer happy), The folks holding all the other land will still be paying holding cost (who cares).
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
3
Is that the land the city bought for the Amazon Debacle, that the Governor had to get involved with due to City Council corruption?
If not, where is that chunk of city-owned property?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
I think the “Amazon” property was on the south side of 32nd.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
How about developing the land for housing instead of building hotels? Granted most of it is in business areas, but all the land across the street from the Alerus center was a good location to expand those housing communities there. If the city was so worried about housing they should have rezoned that to residential, but no they decided to allow more hotels to be built so they could profit from the North!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
The city is really good at stopping the housing developments by zoning on the edge of a development so the housing cannot grow anymore. Another area they did this is 55th st. I know this is on the wrong side of the tracks but why would you limit the housing growth by allowing the commercial zones on the west side. Now there is really no where to go with the housing out there unless you have the strip of commercial properties in the middle.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
I am very confused about your post great day? My healthcare plan has not changed much since obama care passed. I do not receive any checks from the government in the mail. I contribute to social security and payinto a retirement fund that my employer matches every 2 weeks. How is this being a taker? It looks to me like I am responsible for myself and not mooching off of the taxpayer.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
Ron, That was not for you but responding to Capt. Amerika. Sorry for the confusion.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
He tagged the Cap little ron. That why the comment doesn’t make sense to you.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
We tied. How about that … just tryin’ to help a buddy in need.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
What are the odds?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
For a second there I thought you were being Tweety Bird. That is until I saw that we posted at the same time.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Have you ever wondered why the library board was willing to face defeat in their zeal to put a new library down south? The map associated with this discussion says it all. The developers wanted it & the wellness center on the south because it raises the value of their land
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Interesting that school district offfices ended up down there too.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0