There are many reasons why a landowner won't actively pursue sale of the property. We have a number of examples downtown of investor/owners sitting on property waiting on The Next Big Thing. The owner of the red building north of El Guapo's still sits on it, doing nothing but paying taxes, even after the Next Big Thing happened around him. And while it is true that no one has proposed that the city or county condemn the property, almost everyone in this conversation has proposed rejecting every use of the property that is inconsistent with recreational use without any meaningful vehicle for compensating the landowner for the useful value of its property.
Hence the city's (or the county's) involvement. Remember the three elements for an inverse condemnation:
1. An entity with the power of eminent domain;
2. "Takes" the property;
3. For public use.
The reason the mountain bikers can't take up a collection and hand $3.2 million to the owner and close a deal is that the mountain bikers, even if organized into a corporation, do not have the legal power to force the owner to sell. While everyone may have their price, no one can be forced to sell. The power of eminent domain is an attribute of sovereignty. As the sovereign, the state has that power and can, in certain cases defined by statute, delegate that power to other entities. So cities, counties, railroads, public utilities, etc, have the power by statute. Mountain biking clubs don't. Nor does the Sierra Club. Nor do I. The city or the county could clearly take this property for park purposes. The question here is can the government force the landowner to preserve undeveloped land in its present condition without paying compensation.
So those of us who lack the power of eminent domain sit in the stands and cheer for one side or the other without much of a way to directly influence the outcome. The protesters have taken the only route open to them - collective political action. That is as it should be, but with one caveat. The existence of political pressure to preserve this property as it is doesn't immunize the zoning authority from liability for essentially taking the property for public use without just compensation. The public officials involved in the decision are caught between the economic reality that the community as a whole won't support acquisition of the property for its fair market value, but the activists don't really care about that. Their goal is preservation. Compensation is at most an afterthought, as it has been in this discussion, when it should have always been a part of the equation.
That’s an interesting metric. They do know 11,000 cars per week pass into the lower lot. Even if you did it as a per car charge of $5 and assuming the fee did not knock down usage (judging by how many people show up every weekend now, I doubt a user fee would kill it that much) it would pay out in about 58 weeks.
However, that’s not a practical approach if the land were to be taken out of play for future development, assuming Simon walks away. I’m rather surprised the owners of the property never made overtures to RPA or the Y about some sort of seller financing ever since their developer walked away in 2008 from the office park concept. I’m probably even more confused as to why users of the trails back then didn’t coalesce and form a group to buy it once that went away.
A good number of runners, equestrians, hikers, and mountain bikers are professionals, not broke college kids looking for a freebie.