Reply to a comment

Reply to this comment

ajm3s writes:

Why would you want to transfer density credits from a waterfront to an inland location? The value of waterfront developed to its density potential has much more value than those same density credits transferred to an inland lot.

Even a developed waterfront lot, with unused credits, like Winn-Dixie does not portend to be always a storefront years or decades from now. And can then be developed to its potential in terms of the city's property tax revenue.

I understand the flexibility it provides for city planners, but the island is reducing its overall tax revenue potential on future waterfront developments, if these credits are transferred inland.

Am I missing something, or is this just a revision of land code to accommodate a business request to move to a specific site or make inland property more attractive by increasing revenue potential for the business owner/developer.

Does this density transfer issue actually diminish the concept of a CRA recently promoted by the city last year? The CRA was to promote the development of "blighted" areas, not with density transfer credits. By transferring density credit, the city behaving as a shark and now consuming its young.

Why?

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features