[goodJobWalrus]

No, they don't do slowly. Very few of them will buy and hold, it's money being tied up doing nothing. And you have to be fast, longer you wait greedier people get, we've done this many times, the same story repeats itself every time.

As per what is land worth, for a developer, it's a an x amount per buildable square foot (which they need to approximate based on the guidance of their planners, before they rezone).

[brudgers]

There is a cost premium for speed.

Fast cheap good, pick two.

Fast and good isn't cheap. That's where you are.

Fast and cheap isn't good. Just make eight of ten parcels work.

Cheap and good isn't fast.

[goodJobWalrus]

They are not trying to get it for cheap though, they are paying large premium to what it would sell for individually. But, of course, there is a limit to what they can pay. So, either everyone gets more than they would individually, but if they are too greedy, no one gets anything.

8 out of 10 can work if the 2 are at the ends, and that often happens, greedy one makes herself an island. Doesn’t work if they are in the middle. Then they ruin it for everyone.

[brudgers]

Unwillingness to sell isn’t greed. The landowners aren’t part of the dealflow. There’s no quid pro quo. It’s an arms length transaction.

The reason people hold on to land is that it’s less bother than finding an alternative repository of wealth. Stocks go to $0. Land doesn’t.

And there’s emotional attachment that isn’t there for stocks and bonds. Some people are happy to cash out and see the place the kids were raised paved.

Some aren’t and it would hardly be a surprise if such folks don’t cotton much the sort of change to the land that’s on the table.

Like I said long term.

Go back in time and take that lady a pie after church fifteen years before the developers come town…’out of town developers’ that’s the phrase you’re up against.