Fairhope, Alabama
OPINION PAGE
In today’s rapid-growth environment, purchasing land is always a good investment strategy for those individuals who can afford it — and for municipalities as well; asset values are sure to increase in the long run.
Presently the city council is considering purchasing more property for recreation: two 40 acre parcels (approximately), one on S. CR 13 and the other Twin Beech Road south of Young St. are under consideration.
Each has advantages: CR 13 is less costly but Twin Beech is much closer to town, more accessible, and “connected” to the community.
Since the city council has actually been looking for something to do with excess sales tax revenue (the $8 million rainy day fund is overflowing), the Times management thinks considering purchasing all or portions of both would be in the long range interests of citizens: the properties could provide future generations recreation, greenspace or other public use as needed — and become financial assets for the city to improve credit ratings, sure to appreciate in value.
Additionally, they could serve as an economic safety valve for future city councils that could be liquidated when/if needed when the good times come to an end (which they will someday).
Not to be overlooked, the un-zoned county property would immediately be removed from consideration for more private development: probably as more housing tracts.
KEEP ‘TRIANGLE’ UNDER CITY’S CONTROL
In a related matter, the council is simultaneously considering putting all of the city’s ‘Dyas Triangle’ under control of the Weeks Bay Foundation via something called a conservation easement contract.
The council should proceed with caution for the same reasons as before, citizens paid over $8 million for that property in 2013 ... and giving it away or putting beyond the control of the people via their future city leaders many not be prudent in the long run: minimally, the larger eastern portion (along Greeno Road) should remain fully under city supervision/ownership.
At least, the terms of any such agreements should allow all of the people of Fairhope full access to the property (since they financed it); not effectively reserve it exclusively for adjacent Montrose-area neighborhood families' use.
EDITOR
OPINION PAGE
In today’s rapid-growth environment, purchasing land is always a good investment strategy for those individuals who can afford it — and for municipalities as well; asset values are sure to increase in the long run.
Presently the city council is considering purchasing more property for recreation: two 40 acre parcels (approximately), one on S. CR 13 and the other Twin Beech Road south of Young St. are under consideration.
Each has advantages: CR 13 is less costly but Twin Beech is much closer to town, more accessible, and “connected” to the community.
Since the city council has actually been looking for something to do with excess sales tax revenue (the $8 million rainy day fund is overflowing), the Times management thinks considering purchasing all or portions of both would be in the long range interests of citizens: the properties could provide future generations recreation, greenspace or other public use as needed — and become financial assets for the city to improve credit ratings, sure to appreciate in value.
Additionally, they could serve as an economic safety valve for future city councils that could be liquidated when/if needed when the good times come to an end (which they will someday).
Not to be overlooked, the un-zoned county property would immediately be removed from consideration for more private development: probably as more housing tracts.
KEEP ‘TRIANGLE’ UNDER CITY’S CONTROL
In a related matter, the council is simultaneously considering putting all of the city’s ‘Dyas Triangle’ under control of the Weeks Bay Foundation via something called a conservation easement contract.
The council should proceed with caution for the same reasons as before, citizens paid over $8 million for that property in 2013 ... and giving it away or putting beyond the control of the people via their future city leaders many not be prudent in the long run: minimally, the larger eastern portion (along Greeno Road) should remain fully under city supervision/ownership.
At least, the terms of any such agreements should allow all of the people of Fairhope full access to the property (since they financed it); not effectively reserve it exclusively for adjacent Montrose-area neighborhood families' use.
EDITOR
Comments
How about fixing the roads!
There are many other needs, including up to $30 million for utility upgrades (sewer, electric, gas), road paving/intersection improvements, city hall expansion, et al.