Surely the resale value of the property takes into account the level of infrastructure surrounding the property, which would mean that a valuation based on resale value prices in those improvements at their market value.
After reading the article, the impression I came away with was that they were choosing "comparable properties" that were recently re-sold big box sites. It seems that the municipality's appraisers take the infrastructure around the site into account whereas the appraisers for the big box stores are not.
I think it's weird in this case that the methodology on each side is so drastically different. IMHO, the missing piece is clear rules on how to compare large crappy properties that only warehouse stores are interested in... Everyone used to agree on methodology but now the large chains are changing their minds.
Similar to the Amazon HQ2 saga, providing tax breaks to these companies isn't worth it in the long run; that practice should probably cease.
The cost of the increased infrastructure should be charged during construction and capitalized by the owner. The on-going operational costs by the city should be covered by service rates. Property taxes should go into the general fund to support police, fire, schools
