Laserfiche WebLink
Judged hast in th£s category because of the likely lower inflated land <br />associated with It compared to Philip Norris and the Charlotte Motor <br />Speedway sites, and the more favorable possibility of acquiring that <br />land. ~hereas. In the cases of fourth and fifth place finishers in this <br />category. Coddle Creek and Harrisburg. the land owners are adamant about <br /> <br />their ~nwillln~ness to sell their land for any p~icc, <br /> <br /> Yhysical cost of constt-uction is least at Hat-gisburg, which the actual <br />cost est/~ates do reflect. This category very closely follows the cost <br />table, as presented in the Envi~onmental Assessment. <br /> <br />impacting site is Philip Mo~ris, however, the second place finishing <br />Poplar Tent site is also relatively free from any environmental <br />po~sibilities. The Charlotte Hotor Speedway site would have ranked higher <br />than Poplar Tent in this category had it not been £or the concern of <br />construction -on the .eastern .end of the site at ~ocky River. ~otb <br />Harrisburg and Coddle Creek do have siEnificant environmental conce---n.s <br />associated -with them .- Harrisburg, the historic sites on Site, and Coddle <br />Creek, ~oth ar~heological:'ia~d :~aterz quality -concerns- associated_vi~.!~._=£ <br />airport construction adjacent to a reser~oir. <br /> <br /> <br />