[freebilly]

The guys a whack-job, period. In 15 years he hasn't come up with a viable project? I'm not in favor of the city taking his property, but the guy is still a dick.

[lotusblos]

"The guys a whack-job, period. In 15 years he hasn't come up with a viable project? I'm not in favor of the city taking his property, but the guy is still a dick"

I don't know this guy, but I'll bet he's not half the whack-job that you'll find in any member of the Santa Cruz city council.

[truth_seeker]

"The guys a whack-job, period. In 15 years he hasn't come up with a viable project? I'm not in favor of the city taking his property, but the guy is still a dick."

It doesn't matter anything about the person.

What if he wants to put an aquarium on the lot, with free admission? You might call him goofy for not having a profit-motive, or whatever.

He seems to be one with a "vision" of an environmentally sound project. Part of what architects to is have "vision."

I'm a long ways from a Northern California tree hugging liberal environmentalist. I do have an intellectual interest in such things as solar heating, and related building technologies.

That would be my basis for a compromise with the city. He should work out guidelines for an eco-demonstration building. The developer would be bound to put technologies in the project, agreeable to the land owner.

From what I read here, I do not see a case for eminent domain. A vacant lot isn't blight. And it is not a transportation corridor.

So let the lot sit for another 50 years. It is his land.

If they want his land, do a project he supports.

[Don W]

Whether he is or is not a dick is totally irrelvant to this question. It's his land, and he has obviously been paying his taxes on it, or the city would have stolen absconded removed from his possesion taken his land already. It's his, and he wants to do something specific with the land. City council wants to sell this land to someone else. It stinks BIG.