prudent, or not

Is it prudent to negotiate from a position of strength on properties that are POLLUTED and will cost MILLIONS to restore? Is it prudent to negotiate for land that we will have NO zoning powers over? And if the chances of ever getting that land are nine against and four in favor, why are we wasting our time and energy discussing it? Lets develop lands we have, like the 36 street corridor, which has NO zoning or pollution concerns.

Is it true that we spent HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars before on the possibility of annexation? LOTS of expensive attorney hours spent mulling over that possibility and came to the conclusion that years of pollution on those properties with NO Superfund backing and NO cooperation from the current owners is a deal-killer in itself- strike one. Add to it the fact that we are going to have NO zoning powers over that land- strike two. The final point against that happening is that NINE of the 13 County Commissioners dont want to let it go- strike three.

Next!