How much is this land worth?

October 30, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Stadium LandState officials are challenging a $7-million assessment for a 2.3-acre parking lot sandwiched between the RCA Dome and Lucas Oil Stadium. The state has launched eminent domain proceedings, and the owner isn't challenging the taking. The hangup is value. The owner—a trust started by late local businessmen Anthony Maio and Ronald Palamara—says the land is worth $15 million. The state is offering $3 million. A local real estate broker who keeps track of downtown transactions said the land is worth at least $100 per square foot based on recent property deals, putting the price above $10 million. (The man pictured is Paul Roland, attorney for the landowner.)
ADVERTISEMENT
  • My grandpa used to say something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.....
  • Cory: Who's the broker? $100 per foot seems extremely high unless the use is a high rise.
  • The broker asked for anonymity... but did base the estimate on two property sales a couple of blocks from the South Street land.
  • I'm with the people who think it should be valued similar to the other land taken for Lucas Oil Stadium. Those are the true comps.
  • What about using imminent domain to take it?
  • Don't mess with Paul Roland.
  • Why do you say that, Da Hooey?
  • two legit comps!? ok, what were they?? I know about some ground that went for a little over 1MM/acre ($25 -$30/sf) for one of the hotels on west. You're telling me somebody bought ground for 3-4 times that much. Hard to believe. What are they building, Chase Tower?
  • From the story on NK Hurst's property:

    The dispute lasted for months before the Hursts, not wanting to move from the building the family business has called home since 1948, came to a compromise with the city in April 2006, selling 1.7 acres to the building authority for $1.97 million. That seems in line with Ivo's comment.

    That transaction was $1.15 million per acre for ground adjacent to the stadium site. And it seems a good comp because the transaction was voluntary while under threat of eminent domain, similar to this case. 2.3 acres times $1.15 million is $2.67 million.

    That's 1% restaurant tax on about 100 million Big Macs.
  • Cause I know him Cory, and he is top notch. One of the smartest, yet nicest guys you will ever meet. He'll take your money and you'll thank him for it. Smooth operator. I'd hire him in a second.
  • Love the Big Mac comparison. Good work.
  • Thanks Cory. :-)
  • I'm sorry to see that the owner isn't challenging the taking. I think this would be a great case to try to test the limits of the governmental powers in the wake of the New London case.
  • New London would not come into play because Indiana's laws are much tougher.
  • i'm driving by it right now, i luv blackberrys

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

ADVERTISEMENT