Location, location, location ... and what zoning allows determine what a property is actually worth

According to Crain's New York Business, this 85-year-old White Castle at 89-03 57th Avenue in Queens is selling for $15 million.

Having dealt with land use issues from the perspective of a revitalization advocate for about 35 years, I have come to belief that most less involved citizens think land use and planning decision making is a game.

That don't see it as a legal process with parameters.  Yes, a lot of the law preferences development if the project meets categories of approved use, height, and mass. Usually this means that those projects are called "matter of right" with no opportunities for citizens to weigh in.

Public notice for a zoning hearing in Detroit.  Flickr photo by Steven Vance.

If not, and a zoning changes of one or more elements are required to develop the property the way the owner wants, it triggers hearings and opportunities for citizens to weigh in on the matter, positively or negatively.

Similarly, with historic preservation if a building is landmarked individually or is part of a historic district, desired changes require approval, which unless minor also trigger a hearing process. 

Some cities extend this to demolitions, an automatic triggering of public review.

The same is true of environmental review when development proposals are located in sensitive areas, etc.

I call these "remedies," opportunities within the law to have input on the process.

Most citizens see approvals as a process that favors developers.  While the process does favor development--after all, cities make the bulk of their revenue from property tax, and commercial property tax is higher than on residential, plus cities have so much untaxed land between government and nonprofits like churches [see the Growth Machine argument]--it's not a slam dunk.

Based on the regulatory framework projects can be defeated.   Developers call when the zoning and review, and permitting process provides the go ahead to build, "entitlements."

The reason this property interests me is that it is seemingly similar to a property matter I dealt with in Salt Lake involving Sugar House Park ("Learnings from a recent zoning issue I've been involved in").  

There a single private property on the perimeter of the park exists as a historical anomaly predating founding of the park.  

Though zoned low density and neighborhood serving, the property owner valued it as if it could be rezoned to a high density use that wasn't neighborhood serving.  They refused to accept anything opposite their belief.  The failure to get approval for an upzone was based on the land use context and the clear language and history of master planning for that neighborhood-this site was never intended to be able to be densely developed.

One of my arguments against the upzone was that the property owner's intransigence shouldn't be rewarded with an upward revaluation of the property.  Ultimately it wasn't.

The Queens site is zoned for medium density residential (say 6-7 stories), and it wouldn't be a stretch given NYC's recent move to build more housing ("City of Yes") that they could get a slight upzone, but not a major one.

Different property.  Different "entitlements".  Different outcomes.  Different value.