Don't blame me. I'm the guy in favor of limited government, remember? Actually, I had a proposal in front of Tri-Met to master lease a chunk of their excess land on their properties and build retail. It would have given Tri-Met $25-30MM over a decade, and they turned it down flat.
Portland's new eastside streetcar is "an amusement park ride, and the antithesis of efficiency and mobility for the poor slobs in Portland who actually need the trains to run on time." http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oreg...f/2012/09/steve_duin_closing_the_loop_on.html
We wanted to develop retail along their transit stations. Coffee places, dry cleaners, etc. It would have been a win/win. They would have leased us the land, we would have developed and leased the properties. We would have paid them rent for the land, a percentage of rent from the leases and they would have owned the properties after the lease had expired (we would have been responsible for the R&M).
That sounds like an obviously awesome plan. But where specifically was the land, or was it just vague "anywhere you don't develop we'd take please?"
No offense, but I'm not going to describe in detail our plan. I assure you, however, we weren't vague. With these kinds of master lease agreements, you need to be specific to the square foot.
I'm just wondering was it east side, west side, beaverton, gresham? that kind of thing. But I understand and will drop it.
