10/12/88 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Economic Impacts The EIS presented data addressing the impacts on market values of residential properties and we believe'erroneously concludes that "the landfill appears to have no adverse impact on residential property valuation." The sampling was done on a very limited basis and list versus sales price or sales versus assessed values may not necessarily be the best barometers to assess impacts on property values. The City Assessor's office trys to assess all residential improved properties at approximately 93-95% of market value. Thus, all properties should sell at a "premium" to assessed value, similarly, the potential sales price typically is taken into consideration prior to a property listing. Thus, a significant variation in selling vs. listing price shouldn't be reflected. In the April 30, 1988 study of "Socio-economic Impacts of Regional Landfills on Host Communities", area realtors expressed several difficulties in selling properties near the landfill. These ranged from lower listing prices to eliminating portions of the market from even considering a house near the landfill. Thus, the "no adverse impact" conclusion is, at best, speculative in the EIS. Gateway Airport The operation of a landfill within 5000' of an airport se_~ving piston aircraft has been determined to be an incompatible land use by FAA. The state of Minnesota as well as the MC supposedly acknowledges federal policies and regulations yet continues to violate them with respect to both expansion of existing fills and siting of new landfills. Whether the airport is improved or not, it does exist as part of regional, state and national systems plans. The proposed landfill expansion both se_--yes to create a greater hazard to air navigation by increasin~ its size, but also would extend the period of time where hazardous conditions could occur due to continued operation cf the landfill. The -'-iS on pa~e 116 refers to the possibility of a ter~orary delay of. two years fcr airport improvements which · ,,~ ' - . wo._, occur as a result cf the landfill operations This a~ain could only be assured --nro~gn a t~_~.e limit imposed cn the landfill expansion rather than sir. ply approvin? ~o_u .... for the expansion. The EiS cn pa~e 116 also refers to the development restrictions imposed due to Site =. ?hose restrictions apply cn!y-'~-~ - , ..... n the area of -h_. = candifate sites and~___~,-~- areas (!.IS 473.806 subd. !) not to !and outside cf these areas. ~ { { =.--~=- _n_s _s.~u.,..__ suDDorte~~. _..~ 473 .o3_' ~ sub~. I .... -=~-a'i...-~ debt obligations and 47~ 8~0 ,~- ~= = · , p,_c.._s_ cf certain property. Should this be interpreted in any way to be a development restriction cn ~he airport, Ancka County may find itself in a situation where it would have ~o compensate the current landowners for land re~ired for airport use throug~ ac~aisi~ion of tanpcrary development rights.