On Kaid Benfield's blog today, I posted a comment spelling out in a bit more detail, some aspects of our IH-345 tearout plan. Therein, I discussed the more aggressive development scenarios since he quoted my most conservative scenario. However, I pulled the $6 billion number out of thin air. It turns out our most aggressive scenario (which may not be that aggressive as it doesn't assume many that many high-rises -- in the report will point out comparisons to area comparables).
My numbers are still the rough ones, but here is what I presently have for the 9 scenarios which range from conservative to aggressive for both proposed FAR and Land Value. Both of these are numbers that are determined by the market, so we wanted to include plenty of range to show that whether the market overshoots or undershoots on development, it is still highly profitable for the city (and the developers) (and the citizens) to do this.
Our numbers as follows:
Scenario (FAR/Land $) - Expected Investment - Expected Per Year Tax Revenue at year +15 of buildout (95% build-out):
Conservative/Conservative: 730M - 19.8M
Conservative/Moderate: 1.096B - 29.7M
Moderate/Conservative: 1.136B - 30.8M
Aggressive/Conservative: 1.624B - 44.0M
Moderate/Moderate: 1.705B - 46.2M
Conservative/Aggressive: 1.827B - 49.5M
Aggressive/Moderate: 2.436B - 66.0M
Moderate/Aggressive: 2.842B - 77.0M
Aggressive/Aggressive: 4.060B - 110.0M
Ms are millions and Bs are billions.
If we're able to hit the Agg/Agg numbers that would represent about an 80:1 leverage ratio private investment/public investment and a 30x increase in yearly tax revenue.
Methodology coming with the report. We're also building evidence to show that the aggressive scenario may not even be aggressive enough when modeling network value (before/after) and matching up with similar case studies.