[quote=EconProf]Ricechex: there is a lot more to that story than you know. First of all it is city-owned land, not owned by the tenants, who enjoy valuable space and pay way under market value for it. When they were granted tenancy decades ago, they were told it was not permanent and they were strictly tenants. But as they got older and politically savvy and able to gin up a sympathetic media sob story, they became entrenched and the City (read: us taxpayers) could not put to the valuable land to its highest and best use. I believe they have been offered attractive inducements to leave, but they are staying as long as possible…at the public’s expense.
As far as the public good is concerned, I’d rather see the city sell off ITS land to a condo or hotel builder so a lot more people could be utilizing that valuable site.[/quote]
Interesting info Econ. Thanks. Then, if it is public land and owned by the city and the people get bumped then the land should be used for the public such as a park and recreation area. We should all have use of the land. It would be a shame to see the developers profiting from land that is public space. I guess I would rather have those folks living there now, rather than condos that will obstruct the skyline and only affordable for a few.
