City shouldn't rush to get rid of an asset

There may be good reasons for Electric City to consider un-acquiring territory it gained when it annexed a considerable amount of land several years ago, but the city council should think about it more than a little before doing so.

Some people probably think it would be best for one of the likeliest growth spots in the area to be devoid of local leadership or direction. If members of the council are hoping that turkeys would roam free beyond the causeway, they may be right.

The area didn’t develop after the Great Recession killed all possibilities of financing the last would-be development, but that doesn’t mean that fate is permanent.

The Electric City Council, itself, recently tussled with an issue that arose precisely because of an unmet pressure to grow: a short-term rental scheme indicates demand unmet by the lodging industry and shows upward pressure on the value of houses in the city.

The Bureau of Reclamation, as does every major employer here, finds itself at a disadvantage in recruiting employees to work on the largest powerplant in North America, partly because of a lack of adequate housing in the market. Although it wasn’t able to help find a solution to that problem a few years ago, conditions may have changed.

Electric City should not view land beyond its former southern border as a burden just yet. It still holds opportunity.

Scott Hunter

editor and publisher