That Land Deal...

I’ve recently been reading, and posting on, Page County’s strategic economic development plan. There was a version published in 2004 – which was a topic of previous posts – that outlined an overall vision for the County that emphasizes preserving the rural and picturesque nature of the county, supporting existing businesses and attracting investment, creating new jobs, building infrastructure, and encouraging “green” industry.

Now I’ve moved on to the 2008 update of the plan, and in the midst of reviewing this document, I’ve learned more about the County’s pending purchase of some farm land with the intent to develop it for future, unspecified, industrial use.

Several elements of the plan are controversial, including: the intended transfer of the land to the Economic Development Authority (EDA), which effectively relinquishes the County’s responsibility as land owner; and questions about the negotiated purchase price of the land in relation to its assessed value and the current real estate market – the down payment of $1 million alone obligates each man, woman and child resident of the County to a $300 contribution, while the purchase price in excess of $7 million results in County debt equivalent to $2,100 per resident.

There is broad sentiment for getting more information out to residents about the purchase and the strategy behind it, there is also a petition designed to call attention to the matter – more details on the purchase can be found at http://www.pagecountywatch.org/id71.html , or by reading back copies of the Page News and Courier. Even though we are weekenders, we feel like we are stakeholders in these matters because of the property taxes we pay on the Hawksbill Cabin.

After reviewing the economic development plan, I have questions, and don’t seem to be easily able to find answers. The biggest in my mind is, why the rush to procure this land, especially in light of the economic burden this seems to place on Page County residents.

The only driver for the decision I have found is in the executive summary of the 2008 strategic plan, which says, “…the County needs ready-to-go sites complemented with the ability to process permits, licenses, etc. within short turnaround times” in order to attract companies that fit in with the rural character of the County and diversify the economic base.

To me, this is “cart-before-horsing” – among other things, the previous version of the plan called for an assessment to determine what kinds of businesses to target. Was there follow-up on these objectives and initiatives? Without them, I don’t think it’s prudent to land bank this property, betting it is a panacea to future economic development requirements; squirreling it away in a quasi-government EDA that may not have followed up on its own previous goals and objectives is another thing.

At least, this is my first impression about the controversy – but I’m going to do a couple of posts on the 2008 Strategic Plan in the next couple of days, comparing it with 2004, checking out unfinished business from the prior plan. I’ll be taking the perspective of a venture capitalist deciding whether or not I would invest in the plan – I hope that readers find the questions smart, hard, and to the point.

While I am not a voter in Page County, I am a concerned - property owning - stakeholder who wants to see the best thing done – and that means improving the economic conditions for everybody out there, with jobs and a good quality of life.