"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.
The 2 claims are not mutually exclusive....
You've never met an attorney....