Ok this part is weird/dumb to me, from the website:
Quote:
4. The potential future transit corridor land that was included in the purchase of the property but is not considered buildable;
5. A 10 foot construction easement adjacent to the potential future transit corridor on which permanent structures may not be built,
|
Wouldn't it have made more sense for the city to just keep this part of the land, instead of force someone to buy it, even though they can't build on it, and then have to buy it back (for sure at a higher value) 5-10 years later when it's time to build the corridor?