One has to wonder if the city (i.e., Potter, Adams et al) leaves the property sitting fallow for years so the Council/PDC can come to the astounding conclusion that the tract is "worthless," thereby justifying the reason to "sell" it to some developer for $1.

Just a thought...

For sure. They can also start calling it a derelict property, and natter on about how it's attracting a bad element (which, of course, they sit back and let it do).

Urban prairie is sometimes planned by the government or non-profit groups for conservation, to restore or reintroduce a wildlife habitat, help the environment, and educate people about the prairie.[2][3]

Kinda like Detroit.

"reintroduce a wildlife habitat" like rats and dog pacts? hmm sounds like the city council.

Why not earmark the short-term use of this property for a prostitute pick up center to reduce congestion from 82nd?

If we can build a pick-up site for "undocumented" workers, certainly we can build a pick-up site for sex workers. Just making a living shouldn't be a crime.

Think of the possibilities:

1. Free condoms
2. Instant HIV tests
3. Outreach workers
4. Showers/lounge
5. Get them in John's cars, without a lot of street walking
6. Competency reviews by city inspectors

It's a win/win solution.

Mister Tee. I don't think the CoP would be willing to give share it's license to screw.

This is the often used scheme the city uses.
The city causes the site to lay dormant by insisting that the city's plan and ONLY the city's plan be followed for this area.
Then multiple private sector efforts can't find a way to make that one and only plan pencil out the city claims NOTHING can happen on the site without public subsidy.

And, if we could reduce the amount of driving done by the johns, we can reduce CO2 emissions, as well as all of those other nasty things belching from tailpipes. Score one for sustainability!