[Drmyeyes]

I read the posted Peter Korn story and also the accompanying story in the tribune: "Cost of prime site with MAX access: $1". The initial reading of that headline is a shock. In reading the story, Tri-met's, logic in setting that price has some basis in reality, but it's convoluted. It would have been better to say up front that the property was being sold for $4mil, discounted, etc., etc.

Discounting this property seems to be a highly questionable decision despite its problems and flaws. Tri-met's excuse for making such a deal is to gamble on increasing light rail ridership from the building. Really, are they so naieve about the increase in value of land close to downtown that's going to occur as the population continues to expand?

The biggest question is whether this building is what this area needs, and unfortunately, that decision so far has been largely driven by a developer instead of the neighborhood. The neighborhood, represented by the Goose Hollodevelopment should occurw Foothills league, now has to hustle and to catch-up to have some effect on the decision rather than vice versa.

If the value of property in this area were realistically perceived; not just for the current economic cycle but for years down the road, developers might be obliged to approach the neighborhood with their plans in a different manner; with consideration for quality of life for residents, and the character of the neighborhood.

As someone else more or less said, the use of the FAR formula has gotten out of hand. This out of hand use is end-zoning the responsible process that the formula was designed for: to decide how development should best occur for a healthy city of the future.