OKC has plans for blighted area...

[Rover]

I think years of neglect and contribution to continual DEvaluation of the city should be considered too. There are many property owners who negatively affect their neighbors and the entire city by not only not investing in their properties, but letting them accumulate trash, to dilapidate and to not maintain any aspect of their property, generally accelerating the deterioration of value of the entire neighborhood and city. Where is the right of the citizens to fight back and insist that their actions do not continue to negatively affect OUR rights and values? In celebrating the rights of individuals, it has always been held that your right does not extend to negatively affect my right.

[mugofbeer]

Midtowner referred to Kelo v. New Haven under another name and, I may be mistaken, but he also stated that the Pfizer facility was never built. I believe it was but Pfizer announced in the last few months they were vacating it. This is a different type of project. We're not taking land and giving it all to one corporation or one corporation dominating a larger product. This is a large scale redevelopment that will be well diversifed.

I will also echo that there are very few things in the C2S area that are worthy of saving.

[Midtowner]

Midtowner referred to Kelo v. New Haven under another name

This is true.

[Midtowner]

Doesn't sound like anything I want to have next to an area of mixed-development with lofts, coffee shops, retail, etc. And a park. You've got to protect that public investment, first and foremost, and then the resulting development the city could incentivize in this regard is just an added benefit. The bottom line is you just can't have "City Carbonic Sales & Service Co" and tanker trucks and industrial uses next to a $120 million park that the people are paying for. That's the public's environment and the public has the right to assurance that the environment around it will be tip-top.

Speaking of environmental liability, the city and future developers need to be dayum careful about which land they buy and the current landowners are likely terrified as to what sort of consequences will be in store for them when future owners start to do environmental surveys of this land. Just guessing, but due to the nature of many of these businesses, we're going to probably see a lot of environmental litigation down the road.

[Larry OKC]

Agree Mid. the Gazette ran an article mentioning the environmental concerns (sorry don't have the link handy...will see if I can dig it up). In the article it mentioned that they weren't really all that concerned about the C2S property area (seemingly forgetting the 2 EPA Superfund sites that are near that area (both are supposedly cleaned up and off the list).

[Spartan]

Speaking of environmental liability, the city and future developers need to be dayum careful about which land they buy and the current landowners are likely terrified as to what sort of consequences will be in store for them when future owners start to do environmental surveys of this land. Just guessing, but due to the nature of many of these businesses, we're going to probably see a lot of environmental litigation down the road.

True. C2S is the biggest load of crap ever. But I'm sure they'll spin this as, "Oh, we're cleaning up the environment.." one lawsuit against the city at a time.

[kevinpate]

Doesn't sound like anything I want to have next to an area of mixed-development with lofts, coffee shops, retail, etc. And a park. You've got to protect that public investment, first and foremost, and then the resulting development the city could incentivize in this regard is just an added benefit. The bottom line is you just can't have "City Carbonic Sales & Service Co" and tanker trucks and industrial uses next to a $120 million park that the people are paying for. That's the public's environment and the public has the right to assurance that the environment around it will be tip-top.

You can if it is in existence prior to the nearby purchase, a fully functional and on-going concern, and not for sale. Carbonics is the same as a vacant or run down or abandoned property. I don't know the chap, but unless I'm thinking of the wrong spot, the business doesn't look the least bit blighted.

Might prove interesting if the chap was a no intention to sell sort. I could be wrong, but I don't think Kelo provides near as much ground grab support here as some other places, stubborn lil' populist nature of our history and all that.

[rcjunkie]

This is without a doubt one of the best decisions made by the mayor/council in years. This will definitely prove to be a wise move.

[Midtowner]

Might prove interesting if the chap was a no intention to sell sort. I could be wrong, but I don't think Kelo provides near as much ground grab support here as some other places, stubborn lil' populist nature of our history and all that.

There are *lots* of factors which may be considered as contributing to blight. I give you 11 O.S. 38-101(7).

8. "Blighted area" shall mean an area in which there are properties, buildings, or improvements, whether occupied or vacant, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation or open spaces; population overcrowding; improper subdivision or obsolete platting of land, inadequate parcel size; arrested economic development; improper street layout in terms of existing or projected traffic needs, traffic congestion or lack of parking or terminal facilities needed for existing or proposed land uses in the area, predominance of defective or inadequate street layouts; faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness; insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site or other improvements; diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land; defective or unusual conditions of title; any one or combination of such conditions which substantially impair or arrest the sound growth of municipalities, or constitutes an economic or social liability, or which endangers life or property by fire or other causes, or is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime and by reason thereof, is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare;

Takings based on blight don't even have to be done for a public purpose or for public use. It's sort of the exception that swallows the rule, at least where eminent domain in urban areas is concerned.

[mugofbeer]

IMO its one of those things where you have the law and you hope your politicians will use it responsibly. Where you have had significant violations of responsible use, that's where the citizens and state legislatures have tightened the rules significantly. I've really not seen any sign the city has taken advantage of the law in the past and I don't see C2S as a violation. One responsible business sitting in a large-scale redevelopment project isn't a violation as long as they owner is paid a fair price for the property and the cost of moving.

Even in New Haven, the project was a reasonable project with Pfizer committing to a large percentage of it. It was the city of New Haven and the citizens that Pfizer screwed when they moved out long before the project was paid for.

[workman45]

Originally posted by Midtowner:

There are *lots* of factors which may be considered as contributing to blight. I give you 11 O.S. 38-101(7).


Quote:
8. "Blighted area" shall mean an area in which there are properties, buildings, or improvements, whether occupied or vacant, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation or open spaces; population overcrowding; improper subdivision or obsolete platting of land, inadequate parcel size; arrested economic development; improper street layout in terms of existing or projected traffic needs, traffic congestion or lack of parking or terminal facilities needed for existing or proposed land uses in the area, predominance of defective or inadequate street layouts; faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness; insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site or other improvements; diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land; defective or unusual conditions of title; any one or combination of such conditions which substantially impair or arrest the sound growth of municipalities, or constitutes an economic or social liability, or which endangers life or property by fire or other causes, or is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime and by reason thereof, is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare;


Typical, 198 words to say 'If we want it, we'll take it.'

[Midtowner]

Typical, 198 words to say 'If we want it, we'll take it.'

Sort of. Every situation is unique and there are things a landowner could do to defend against a taking based on blight.

Probably not in this case though... I doubt anything would really be feasible.

[HOT ROD]

.... .....

Having said that, objectively a few points come to mind with 'Eminent domain'.

1. Yes, the city may give what the market value is for the property, but the whole flaw to that thinking is, the property IS OLD and therefore not worth much. So, if they force the owner to move, likely they won’t be able to afford a new property. The City should assist with this process too, be it tax breaks for a while, providing the land to build on, acquiring unsold properties that these companies affected can buy at a more than reasonable rate, forcing the owners of UNSOLD properties to be proactive in Building City revenue even if it means giving the seller of that property tax incentives on new developments. If the city is in the mode of forcing change, it should be more prolific in its affect.

2. Since the properties ARE that old and dilapidated, owners of these properties should realize that the amount of time for those properties to be declared unfit is short. The cost for these properties to be maintained is substantial. Should the business be a legit business, they should be considering beautification and improvements anyway so they can be a part of this whole improvement, because in the end, winning more citizens should mean more business for them. But, from what I can see, most owners immediately affected by the Park are taking after the 'salvage yard' look instead.

3. .... .....
That leaves the citizens. Unfortunately the low-income citizens usually finish last in these situations. Wouldn't it be nice if OKC could revolutionize 'eminent domain' by going out of its way to set an example for other cities in how it handles relocating low income families? If OKC is thinking in a forward fashion...environmentally and in promoting a healthy lifestyle, they can shine to the nation in this instance with ethics. Not a lot of families would be moved. Spending a little more in this case would elevate the city’s ethics in the eyes of others.

Great ideas BigD.

If OKC takes your suggestions (and I hope the city does), it will lend a LOT of credibility to the city and show that the city is progressive and also really cares about it citizens AND BUSINESSES, regardless of size or content. Even if the city isn't successful in every case, adopting these ideals as a mission and 'trying' to be as honest and fair as possible should minimize any legal confrontation and also put the city on very good light nationally.

As much as I hate blight that exists in the area, maybe we should be able to help move legitimate businesses by excusing some of the taxes of the 'new' location for a time period. These could be thought of as incentives that actually could be factored into the buyout offers and help spread around those funds. Nobody should plan on getting rich off of the new Central Park BUT we as a city should encourage our businesses to relocate and not contribute additional blight to new areas.

I hope we also assist homeowners in the blighted area into new housing in "say" Paseo or Midtown or other areas that we are trying to build up. These existing homes aren't the biggest nor best nor are they in the best of shape - BUT they are citizens of this city and should be taken care of FAIRLY. We could also give them first option for new housing (of same sq ft) that comes onboard. ..

This goodwill would go a long way and would truly show OKC as pro-business and also a very pro-gressive city!!!

[Midtowner]

HotRod, I just don't see that happening. Landowners get cash for their property -- not what the property is worth to them for their particular use, but fair market value, i.e., the price which would have existed between a willing buyer and a willing seller. They get a check for that amount (I'm ignoring the procedure aspects) and nothing more. They can fight the amount that's awarded, and many do. The good news is that if they get even 10% more than the Commissioner's Award (which is what a committee of appraisers say the property is worth), then they get their attorney's fees paid for. My firm has had a lot of success in that particular area as our senior partner (dad) oversaw the right-of-way takings for much of our interstate system... even won the lawsuit ending the environmental litigation threatening the construction of the Hefner Parkway.

As far as the relocation assistance goes, that too is cash. These folks will get to choose where to resettle. As far as the businesses go, there are plenty of areas. As for the few residential owners, I feel for them, but the statutes don't really allow transfers of wealth, just what the law allows.

Now.. if they want to demand jury trials alleging they didn't get offered fair market value, who knows what a jury will do. That's a situation the Urban Renewal folks would want to avoid for sure.

[HOT ROD]

Midtowner, I agree with your assessment and have the up most respect for your and other lawyer member's opinions and advice.

But I (and I believe BigD) am talking about the city doing something a little bit different, a bit revolutionary - much like what MAPS has been. Is there a way we could head this off before it even happens?

We offer tax breaks to businesses all of the time, why not offer a 'grace period' for C2S businesses on the tax assessed in their new location. Surely, I would assume the land of their new areas would be worth more than the current blighted area in C2S. That added expense may not be part of the FMV of the current land, so many owners might feel undercompensated. But, if we consider this and offer a period of time where owners wouldn't need to pay the higher tax (or we keep the tax at the same original C2S rate for a period of time), I think it would go well to showing businesses that OKC 'cares' but also will help businesses improve. I would think, given this - that many businesses would do much better in their next location keeping their properties up (maybe we make this a requirement to be eligible for the forebearance) and we could turn these blight owners into successful and progressive business leaders.

Yeah, I know it's salvage yard owners and such - but if we can give them an incentive we might just avoid pointless lawsuits AND keep the business community morale while also improving OKC for all.

We might just be the first major city in America to do such a program and it wouldn't actually cost the city any more money (assuming the city isn't currently getting tax money in the new relocated areas already, so if we delay for a few years - there's no downside). It would recognize their contribution to the city and hopefully they would try better in their new location to keep it clean and organized.

as for the residents, I also agree with FMV and I know those houses will not get much value - but I think there is something to be said for goodwill and these people are POOR. If we could offer assistance, even having the city point the way towards development the resident's cash awards could afford and maybe also delay their property tax for a period; I just think it would be a very good think and also help expedite everything.

Again - I know it is a longshot from a legal pov, but OKC is a progressive forward thinking city and I think if we at least tried some of these ideas; we might just keep morale at an all time high and also change many more minds about OKC's viability as a major city (just like we have been doing with MAPS in the first place).

[Larry OKC]

True. C2S is the biggest load of crap ever. But I'm sure they'll spin this as, "Oh, we're cleaning up the environment.." one lawsuit against the city at a time.

Ok, color me confused...if you believe C2S is "biggest load of crap ever" why were you such a supporter of MAPS 3? You do realize that many of the pieces (especially the high $$$ ones) were the 1st steps of the C2S plan?

[Spartan]

Ok, color me confused...if you believe C2S is "biggest load of crap ever" why were you such a supporter of MAPS 3? You do realize that many of the pieces (especially the high $$$ ones) were the 1st steps of the C2S plan?

Good observation. I am probably MAPS 3's number 1 supporter, an epithet that entitles the bearer to an obscene amount of constructive criticism as well as praise. I am also one of the downtown area's staunchest advocates. The MAPS 3 projects are all GREAT projects with potential to continue the positive transformation full-steam ahead, provided each project is strategically located. The senior centers can all be great, in particular, with the right location and design. The convention center can be great in the right location, disastrous in the wrong location (but it's worth noting that I fully agree with the CONCEPT that we do need a new convention center, wherever it be). The streetcar and park are also very contingent on location, and so on.

I think Core to Shore, as envisioned by the non-planners in control of the project, is a negative for efforts to make downtown a great mixed-use 24/7 environment. Most developers have agreed that it poses a risk to residential demand in areas that are still not "finished," Bricktown merchants are all in agreement that the "chosen site" for the convention center will be detrimental them and the rest of Downtown (and in my opinion, including C2S), and so on. I think C2S is a great opportunity to build a great, urbanist neighborhood--but not as envisioned, and especially not with typical 1970s "urban renewal" elements like a convention center superblock and a super-wide boulevard (hello, E.K. Gaylord Deux). I think that the park is a great concept, a smaller, more intimate blvd would be a great concept, the river projects will be a great boon, and the city actively pushing for private redevelopment will help get the ball rolling. C2S just needs to be treated like any other part of downtown with potential.

[Midtowner]

HotRod, the biggest issue I see with all of this is the potential environmental litigation. If the city acquires that land, they're more than likely acquiring tremendous liability. That's to the HUGE advantage of many of these landowners. In most cases, I'd be more than tempted to say that that's enough... or even more -- to say that if possible, we should be suing the heck out of some of these businesses to take care of the cleanup costs if necessary (and I'm guessing it'll be necessary).

For others, there'll be negotiations for sure, but I just don't see the point in offering anyone anything more than they're entitled to. Assuming they've done everything they've been required to do environmentally (unlikely), they should be paid exactly what their land is worth plus relocation costs and C2S should happen.

I just don't see the upside of what you're proposing.

[Kerry]

Here is why I don't think taking land from someone and giving it to someone else is a good idea. The whole idea of MAPS is to improve the city. But improve the city for whom? Well obviously it is to improve the city for the residents, but when you take the land away from the very people that you were trying to help in the first place did you actually do any good? No you didn't. Let these people have their economic ship come in. Why would you want to deny them that?

[Midtowner]

Let these people have their economic ship come in. Why would you want to deny them that?

To have the sort of expectation that having your property condemned due to blight is like winning the lottery is not only unrealistic, but potentially very costly (for both sides). I'm not saying that property owners should just lie down and take whatever the city offers -- that'd likely be foolish. What they need to do RIGHT NOW is to secure legal counsel so that their interests are looked after throughout this process.

The statutes say that the city is supposed to expend every effort to negotiate a 'fair' price. My experience is that condemning authorities start with insulting low ball offers. And those offers probably won't get a whole lot better. This could be different from other urban renewal movements, but I highly doubt it. The Urban Renewal folks are far more likely to play hardball than they are to be benevolent. Their duty is to the city -- not to the landowners.

Also, as I said before, due to the nature of many of these businesses, environmental cleanup costs are going to be potentially nasty.

At this stage, it's impossible to know how this'll play out.

[BigD Misey]

MidTowner,
You are right. There is not a financial upside, and these ideas certainly won’t quell the inevitable negotiations. But, at the same time, as exemplary as OKC has been, I still feel the image and reputation of the city can benefit by considering some of the measures. I understand there are already legal parameters in place, and I'm not suggesting challenging the value of the current structure. It has been what it has been for a reason. However, every plan could and should be reviewed for improvement possibilities. If OKC is the trendsetting RENAISSANCE city it wants to continue to be, then those were just some ideas.
While I always pull the ‘Cities are Businesses and need to make tough decisions like businesses’ card in these situations, at times I lean to the ‘At strategic times Businesses improve their image through charity and innovation’ mode. I think this is a good opportunity.

And, I’m not suggesting that properties be forced to sell at fair market value to the displaced companies, if the potential for those properties requires a reasonable amount of time to reach its maximum value.
OK, let me choose one area as an example of what I’m thinking...
The Blocks between 44 and Macarthur and the Oklahoma (Canadian) River south to Newcastle. Just by estimation, I would say only in the last 5 years has any effort been made to developed this mostly barren area. What triggered the development? DELL was probably the largest reason. Maybe the river too? But, why did Dell choose this spot? Likely… land value. And tax incentives were nice too! BOTH played into the development. Taxpayers are allowing for those breaks so Dell can build the community with employees and revenue. Why not for a few local businesses to continue to exist? Just for a couple of years to offset the expense of being forced to move? And because the city already would have established
A. by a third party estimate, what those moving costs would be, but also
B. an unprecedented plan to assist with an established % those cost through creative measures. Funds that under normal 'eminent domain' procedures, they would not receive.
The reason I chose this tract of land is, until Dell moved there, no one was saying ‘I think I’ll choose to develop the land over here by the run-down apartment on 15th, you know, in the flood plain! Behind the hotel strip and industrial warehouses!’ There are numerous areas like this area was 10 years ago, large areas, undeveloped that could reasonably be afforded. Naturally, once the owners of these tracts become aware of any intent to move numerous businesses in, they would inflate the value. I’m just suggesting that these tracts be frozen in value should the city designate it as a ‘relocation zone’, so to speak. Whatever the current value shows, this value should hold for the duration of each stage of implementation. This would only apply to the businesses directly associated by the ‘eminent domain’ move. If OKC has anything that most big cities don’t have, its LOTS of undeveloped land within the city limits.
Why? There could be any number of reasons. Wealthy developers purchasing inexpensive land until decades later when demand produces the desired profit is likely the number one reason. Undesired location is probably a second reason. It’s this second reason that would make me choose a relocation zone. It would likely be an outlying /suburb, mid-low income or industrial zone. Reasoning: If downtown OKC, midtown and river areas become the hotspot they are projected to be, the residents that are there will not likely be the type to hop in the car and drive to pull-a-part for an inexpensive replacement. By and large, they will take it to a shop, or when in that much of disrepair, will just claim insurance and get another. Salvage yards and hubcap businesses, while somewhat affected by location, would not as much so even if moved to an outlying area, near the ‘burbs or in industrial like undeveloped areas. And auto part/accessories stores can easily, affordably make a transition to small vacant commercial properties in decent locations. It would not greatly increase the drive or inconvenience for someone who seek that business either. It’s not like it is with restaurants and retail outfits who are more strategically located near residential and business hot spots. That would handle more than ½ of the displaced businesses between walker & shields and 3rd to the river.

It bears bringing out that this creative measure would be 'case specific' though! In this case I feel it could work because
A. There are merely a few businesses affected
B. Even fewer citizens/residences
C. The measures could be implemented in stages, as citizens watch implementation, should the see it is not advantageous, just discontinue the venture at stage one. But, at least a creative measure was attempted.

Again, I will always wonder what creative measures could have beed taken in Dallas so that the Stadium could have been built HERE instead of Arlington...ESPECIALLY after seeing the droves of people coming in to that area. What stopped it in part was the council and citizens too, felt it was unfair to the large number of low-income families that would have been displaced due to eminent domain. What if some kind of creative measures could have assisted with these costs? We'll never know because neither side wanted to help, and now the city is the only one hurting. But both could have had a better image if they had a more charitable tone.
Oops, I’m ranting…not good!

[Midtowner]

I'm not sure what you're proposing. To treat them nicely? Do you think that the citizens owe these folks more than they owe any other subject of a condemnation proceeding? Why should the salvage yard owner (whose property, I might even argue is less than worthless due to possible environmental contamination) be compensated at a higher rate or in a better way than some other schmuck who loses his lot because the city needs to build a drainage ditch or a wider road?

If what you're talking about is inherent fairness, let's be sure you're making an apples to apples comparison. We have procedures -- very specific ones which we follow in these cases... so why should the rules apply for everyone else and not these folks?

[Kerry]

To have the sort of expectation that having your property condemned due to blight is like winning the lottery is not only unrealistic, but potentially very costly (for both sides). I'm not saying that property owners should just lie down and take whatever the city offers -- that'd likely be foolish. What they need to do RIGHT NOW is to secure legal counsel so that their interests are looked after throughout this process.

Yes, but these people actually have the winning ticket in their hands, and under this analogy, the city is going to come in a say, "Tough, you didn't cash in your winning ticket soon enough so we are going to give it to someone else. Here is your dollar back."

The thing that made MAPS so successful is that it built infrastructure and the private sector developed the land around it. The only thing the city built along the canal that was not MAPS funded was Bass Pro Shop. Does anyone want to argue that it was the best use of canal front property? The city needs to build the park, but let the private sector, and only the private sector, develop the land around it.

[Midtowner]

Yes, but these people actually have the winning ticket in their hands, and under this analogy, the city is going to come in a say, "Tough, you didn't cash in your winning ticket soon enough so we are going to give it to someone else. Here is your dollar back."

Well, that winning ticket is going to get paid fair market value (whatever that is) or they could try to go for broke and take it to a jury... might come up lucky. Juries are strange and often terrifying creatures.

I disagree with your analogy though. Pull-apart, for example, never had any designs of utilizing that land for anything other than a salvage yard. And even then, I'm wildly speculating here, I'm guessing they're going to leave millions of dollars worth of environmental liabilities behind before that land can be developed as anything other than a parking lot.

But even as to prospectors -- real estate prospecting is a risky business, 'specially in blighted areas where condemnation is a real (and in this case, imminent) concern. Again, our job as taxpayers (and you argue this with respect to the Obama administration, but seem to do a 180 when you're talking about OKC) is not to make sure that investors make bucks on their investments. Our interest as taxpayers is that the city is able to develop some sort of plan for this area which benefits the entire city in terms of image, revenue, etc.

My stocks were doing pretty good before the crash at the end of '08... I had the proverbial winning ticket and failed to cash it in. Wanna bail me out too?

[Larry OKC]

... Landowners get cash for their property -- not what the property is worth to them for their particular use, but fair market value, i.e., the price which would have existed between a willing buyer and a willing seller. ...

...The statutes say that the city is supposed to expend every effort to negotiate a ‘fair’ price. My experience is that condemning authorities start with insulting low ball offers. And those offers probably won’t get a whole lot better. ...

This is where I have some of the problem with the whole process (even if for a legitimate public need...not want). The whole concept of the fair deal is summed up in the 1st quote. It takes two parties to come to an agreement on that amount. If the landowner is being forced to sale, what constitutes "fair"? The mere fact that he is being forced to sell IMO negates the whole "fair" concept. This is similar to entering into a contract under duress.

The second quote plays into it as well. By condemning or declaring the property bighted, hasn't the City immediately devalued the property? Sounds like it. Can anyone else even come in at this point and make an offer or is the landowner stuck with whatever the City decides (understand that the Landowner does have some legal recourse). By devaluing the property by the condemnation/blighted designation, it seems understandable that the City starts with a "low ball" offer. After all, who in their right mind would offer anything for such a property (other than the bare minimum)?

Used to work for an auction company and we would often have a Seller who didn't get what they thought was a fair price for their property. In that instance, if a seller is that concerned, a minimum bid or reserve price has to be set beforehand. If that amount isn't reached, there is no sale. If the property is sold without a reserve, what constitutes fair market value? It is the price willing to be paid by competing bidders. If there are few or no competing bidders, the fair price is the highest amount bid. For instance. Let's say there are 3 bidders for a particular property. Bidder one is only willing to pay $1/2M. Bidder 2 is willing to go to $1M. But bidder 3 is willing to go to $2M. Is the fair market value what bidder 3 was willing to pay? No, the fair market value is only $1M. The seller looks at that and thinks he just lost $1M. But the only way he was going to get the full $2M is if both bidder #2 & #3 are willing to bid that high. Bidder #3 thinks he got a bargain and the seller thinks he may have gotten ripped off (unless the Seller thought it was only worth the same as bidder #1)