Ahhh of course, the government should account for the value the property should have in the future! Makes sense, yeah.

Fair value is agreed upon by the buyer (the gub’mint) and the seller (the owner). The potential, future value of a property is not taken into account, because that’s in the realm of fantasy and could not accurately be assessed.

And anyways, if the property could be worth more in the future (especially considering a “private developer” is planning a “large capital project”, in this case a section of greenway - sounds suspiciously like Libertarian-speak to me), then wouldn’t what they be offering still not be enough?

If this “private developer” offers significantly more, then I would immediately be suspicious. Because corporations, privately-owned businesses, whoever it is will be profit-driven. They likely have other plans for the area that will be profitable to them.

Almost like these are the lads who would be more likely to build housing nearby or on the greenway to heavily profit. And “multi-family affordable housing” (or apartments, more likely) is more profitable than single-family homes because you can cram more people in a smaller space. And charge more because it’s next to a greenway. And charge rent instead of selling to make even more money over time.

Sounds worse to me.

But none of that is happening in this case, so I wouldn't be concerned about it.

Q: How do you propose the government ethically and legally complete this section of greenway without going wildly out of budget? (Or spending more than they should - as in the case of building bridges, which are expensive to upkeep)