Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Pays Couple $1.7m For 1 Acre Plot

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the good-work-if-you-can-get-it dept.

Businesses 215

itwbennett writes "Chris Nerney is blogging about Apple's $1.7 million purchase of a 1-acre lot in Maiden, N.C. where it plans to build a $1 billion, 500,000 sq. ft. data center. The couple who owned the land, and the home that sat on the land, Donnie and Kathy Fulbright (hereafter known as Apple's shrewdest investors) reportedly 'rejected two previous offers from Apple before being told to name their price,' says Nerney."

cancel ×

215 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

blog spam (5, Informative)

CaptainDefragged (939505) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850200)

Blog spam. Here is [bloomberg.com] the actual story.

Re:blog spam (1)

Jstlook (1193309) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850792)

Thank you!

Btw, 1 acre is approximately 1.1 football fields. I don't have the acre to library of congress conversion, but for the obligatory car analogy ...

They bought a car back in 57, and after getting a couple offers, finally had someone demand they named their own price, so they did. It was a cool 1.7 mil!

Re:blog spam (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851298)

To add some additional clarity: One acre = 220 feet x 220 feet (67 meters x 67 meters). This comes out to 48,400 square feet, or 4489 square meters. Not a huge amount of land, enough for one really nice lot for a home, or 3 to 4 average smaller city home lots here in the US.

Re:blog spam (1)

ATestR (1060586) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851540)

I always remember it as 66 x 660 from my days doing land surveying.

Re:blog spam (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851516)

Thank you!

Btw, 1 acre is approximately 1.1 football fields. I don't have the acre to library of congress conversion, but for the obligatory car analogy ...

They bought a car back in 57, and after getting a couple offers, finally had someone demand they named their own price, so they did. It was a cool 1.7 mil!

Tucker Convertible bid to 1.5 Million but did not meet reserve [autorestoration101.com] - that car was even 10 years older.

Fair market price (3, Funny)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850202)

Good for them. I wonder why apple wanted it so bad?

Re:Fair market price (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850270)

Apple was building a $1Billion server farm on the property in North Carolina. Clearly they were the last holdout.

Re:Fair market price (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851170)

In the UK they can be "vested" out by force by government at the "market" value.

Holding out you need to be careful, you may lose your property for pittance as the government can snap it up for "regeneration" of the area and you have no comeback.

Re:Fair market price (2, Informative)

weav (158099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851260)

That can happen here too; we call it "Eminent Domain". The thing is that one needs the local gummint in one's pocket. Sounds like Apple didn't have it or didn't want to use it.

There is *some* recourse about the amount of compensation but it requires suing (possibly in Federal court).

Re:Fair market price (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851408)

In many states (Including North Carolina), Emminent domain cannot be used to transfer property from one private entity to another. It can only be used for "Public Use" projects, i.e. roads, railroads, utility cooridors, etc. If a property is siezed and not used for a "Public Use" project within a specified timeframe, most states have a mechanism for returning the siezed property to the owner it was siezed from.

If a property was siezed under Emminent domain, and not used for a Public use Project, it cannot simply be turned over to a private developer without first giving the owner it was siezed from an opportunity to buy it back (usually for the original compensation price or fair market value, whichever is lower). Even if they succeed in greasing a judges palm, their is always something known as Appeals. Any developer who tries to bypass this process is likely to lose the land (and more) in court.

Re:Fair market price (4, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850506)

Good for them. I wonder why apple wanted it so bad?

I wonder why Slashdot posts summaries.

Re:Fair market price (2, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850994)

To have a place for the links we use to melt down the servers. :-)

Re:Fair market price (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851270)

Apparently their parcel was needed to run the diverse path fiber into the data center. I hope Apple fires their project manager for committing the whole project when the data access wasn't assured.
This could have been Apple's data center to nowhere!

Re:Fair market price (1, Troll)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851318)

It's the only place in California where the iPhone can get a decent signal...?

Re:Fair market price (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851424)

Know how I know you can't read?

Waiting to sell (2, Insightful)

thoughtspace (1444717) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850206)

Bet he neighbours who did not wait are pissed off.

Re:Waiting to sell (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33850324)

Not a problem, Jobs will refund them $100 if they whine loudly enough.

I have a stupid question. (1)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850212)

Exactly what is so damn special about that particular plot of land, anyway?

Re:I have a stupid question. (4, Informative)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850232)

It's right next to their data center.

Obviously worth it to them. And probably about what they're used to paying for land in Cupertino. :b

Re:I have a stupid question. (5, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850362)

A quick check on some Cupertino real estate says that'll get you a home around 3500 sq. ft. on around 1/5 of an acre. Most land I saw in that price range was about 1/2 an acre. I expect commercial real estate is significantly higher.

So by their standards, it's a hell of a bargain.

Re:I have a stupid question. (2, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850370)

In Cupertino, the $1.7 million wouldn't buy half that amount of land.

Re:I have a stupid question. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850398)

Based on typical real estate prices in the area [realtor.com] , it looks like Apple paid between 500% - 900% more than what the house was worth. Not bad.

Re:I have a stupid question. (2, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850420)

Oh dang, guys, I totally messed up in the calculation above. It's a 49 acre piece of property, not a 1 acre piece (it seems they kept the acre with the house on it, but I might be reading the story wrong, it's not clear to me at this point). I'll bet they didn't make more than $0.5 million extra over Apple's original offer; I'd bet that the land would have sold for $1.2 million if Apple weren't desperate. Much less than my original braindead guess.

you're reading the story wrong (3, Informative)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850496)

Their old plot was 1 acre, sold for this price, they took the money and built a new house on a 49 acre lot somewhere else.

Re:I have a stupid question. (3, Informative)

Blymie (231220) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850498)

No, the 49 acre piece of land is where they moved *to*. The price is for their old one acre lot..

Re:I have a stupid question. (2, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850590)

ok that's it, I'm not typing anymore tonight.

Re:I have a stupid question. (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850572)

So I guess that leads to the next question - why Cupertino? Sounds like an expensive area to build.

Re:I have a stupid question. (2, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850598)

lol now you're thinking as clearly as I am. It wasn't in Cupertino, it was in North Carolina. Apple headquarters are in Cupertino, that's the only way it's related at all.

Location, location, location! (4, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850336)

Ask any real estate agent about it.

-jcr

Re:I have a stupid question. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33850480)

not a stupid question. thanks.

Orchard with a magic RDF & ancient Indian ceme (4, Funny)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850630)

Exactly what is so damn special about that particular plot of land, anyway?

Since times immemorial it has been a magic orchard with a natural Reality Distortion Field of its own? ;-)
They even say if you dig RF-undead iPhone4s deep enough beneath the ancient apple trees, sometimes they return white-washed and fixed so you can hold them any way you like...

More details (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33850214)

The actual article is at Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-05/apple-s-data-needs-mean-1-7-million-jacuzzi-for-carolina-pair.html [bloomberg.com]

The article linked in the summary is just a blog post condensing the Bloomberg article, which contains much more information including the tax incentives that NC's state and local governments used to attract Apple, the revenue prospects those incentives were designed to entice, Apple's purposes in building the data center, and, for the human interest angle, more on the family involved and their plans for the proceeds from the land sale. Really, why in the world would anyone have submitted a crummy, abbreviated blog post over a decent article from a reputable source?

Re:More details (2, Interesting)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850344)

Am I the only one who finds it extremely unsettling that Apple plans to run a $1B facility with up to 50 people and *maybe* employ up to 250 more minimum wage people for security etc?

That's a trend that's not going to go away. Welcome to the information economy where people are in a surplus. How long until a $10B facility is managed by 2 people (excluding the ISS)?

Re:More details (2, Informative)

confused one (671304) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850384)

It's a data warehouse. How many people do you think it takes to operate? And for what it's worth, it says nothing about minimum wage in the article.

Re:More details (2, Insightful)

LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851024)

Am I the only one who finds it extremely unsettling that Apple plans to run a $1B facility with up to 50 people and *maybe* employ up to 250 more minimum wage people for security etc?

That's a trend that's not going to go away. Welcome to the information economy where people are in a surplus. How long until a $10B facility is managed by 2 people (excluding the ISS)?

Welcome to the Industrial revolution. Things that can be Automated are automated for the savings in manpower. Why should computers remain a labour intensive industry?

So.... What should they do? (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851200)

Hire a bunch of people to sit around and do nothing, just so that they can say they are employing more people?

You realize that a non-trivial factor in our high quality of life is the amazing amount of automation we have. One person accomplishes so much more than they used to, in particular when it comes to trivial tasks. Time was, little got done other than getting food, because it is so important and it took so much time. Most humans spent a lot of their time on farming or hunting. Lead to a low standard of life. Large parts of our population did nothing but work on providing for our most basic need. Now? You get a few, highly educated, people and some heavy equipment and they can handle thousands of acres. Food can be produced cheap because it is so automated.

Same shit with data storage. Data is cheap and widely available because it is dirt cheap to store. Put a bunch of computers in a building and have a few people mind after them. That's all you need. However you can store and distribute massive amounts of data that way. Make it nice and cheap. Go back to the days of manual card catalogues and physical books and data was a privilege. You had to have money, power or connections to get easy access to data. Basically a university library with good ILL was the only way to truly have access to lots of data, and even then you had to wait and deal with problems. It was labour intensive to get and expensive to store.

Please remember that efficiency increases don't mean nobody works, it means people work in other areas, or accomplish more. For example in addition to IT support, I also do media for our department. I record talks and things like that. I can do that, because of modern technology. I record to a digital tape, dump it to computer, and edit it right there. Can be done with little of my time. As such, I can do it in addition to other duties. Were it all film, we'd need a dedicated person. Editing would take forever because it is literally a process of hand cutting the film and splicing it back together. Simple edits take a lot of manual time. Not with an NLE program. I can do an edit in a few seconds.

The idea is we automate more simple things and we can move on to more complex things. Also, it can simply needing to work less to have the same amount of benefit.

Re:More details (2, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850346)

TReally, why in the world would anyone have submitted a crummy, abbreviated blog post over a decent article from a reputable source?

AdWords traffic for their buddy or themselves? It's called blogspam for a reason. Maybe the /. editor should have done some editor work?

Re:More details (2, Informative)

Blymie (231220) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850504)

There are no editors at /. None. Nada.

Never has been.

In fact, calling what Slashdot 'story submission approval' people do, 'editing', is an insult to editors everywhere!

Re:More details (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33850574)

Really, why in the world would anyone have submitted a crummy, abbreviated blog post over a decent article from a reputable source?

Welcome to Slashdot, you must be new here.

Because it was blogspam. (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851248)

Look at the submitter, look at the URL, sigh at timothy for accepting it in this form.

Do the math (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33850216)

You'd think when the purchaser is building a $1billion dollar house on the plot you're selling, you'd ask for a bit more for your land.

Re:Do the math (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33850358)

For someone doing math your logic is a bit lacking. The purchaser is building a $1billion dollar house on the plot *they'll end up buying*. If you ask for a bit more, Apple might buy a plot from someone else.

Re:Do the math (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851042)

Actually I think, if I understand it correctly, it was the neighbour plot where the datacenter will be. We don't know what plans Apple has for the plot that this story was about.

Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (2, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850220)

I mean...being paid that much money is like winning the lottery. The trouble I see with this is that many of the folks who won the lottery are not happy at all if this story [msn.com] or this one [usatoday.com] are to be believed.

I would have wanted Apple to pay me some regular good cash making me fluid till my last days on planet earth. How about that?

Re:Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33850260)

Those stories are just something poor people write for themselves and tell to themselves to feel better and try to delusion themselves into believing that not having all that money is not so bad... Cognitive Dissonance.

Re:Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (4, Insightful)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850286)

So learn some self control and bank the single big payoff, then spend wisely for the remainder of your days. The article refers to the people winning then "losing" the money. They didn't lose it. They fucking blew the cash!

Re:Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851350)

I may well be wrong but that falls under cap gains you either buy something else with it or give uncle sam a HUGE chunk of it.

Re:Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (2, Interesting)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850326)

Mwaw, those are 8 stories gone wrong. How many people have won millions? About now... probably also millions worldwide. Here when you win a big price they suggest you take like 200.000-400.000 and spend it on stupid things. That cool car, buy that expensive leather handmade coat... hell buy 2! When that money is gone, come back to us and we give you the rest of the sum. In that time people have a chance to live 'big' and after those initial feelings of *luxury must have* are gone... they know a bit better how fast you can spend an incredible amount of money.

Re:Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33850380)

This is just because the kind of people who win the lottery are dumb rednecks, and they don't understand what you're supposed to do when you have money.

The guy quoted near the end of the second article is right. If these yokels bought some stocks, they could be living comfortably off capital gains and dividends, and still have the original prize money available to them at any time they wish to sell. Instead, they buy mansions and cars and pay off their friends and relatives. Pretty fucking stupid.

Re:Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850646)

I mean...being paid that much money is like winning the lottery. The trouble I see with this is that many of the folks who won the lottery are not happy at all if this story or this one are to be believed.

The main problem I see with the lottery winners is simply that they got a huge amount of money without the experience of how to invest or save that money. I don't know whether the couple in question can handle the money better or not, but it's both not as big, hence, not as much a problem to invest and they might be shrewder investors, more able to handle that kind of money.

Re:Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33850662)

They had a worthless piece of land and turned it into $1.7M.

Either they are complete dicks or astute with money. If they are the former, then I hope that they blow threw it and then have to live in a shack. If they are the latter, then I think they will be just fine.

Re:Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850686)

How about buying stocks for the money? (In yours and the global economy I have no idea, on the other hand really what is the alternative?)

Co-related I read an article this night how if you had two brothers where both started working at 19 and:
* The first one already from the beginning put away 1000 sek / month until he lost his dedication for it seven years later at the age of 26.
* While instead the other one picks up the interest and starts saving at that age until he retires at age 65, 39 years later.

Then the first guy who's put away 84.000 sek got 8.2 million sek thanks to compound interest at (in average) 11.2% / year.

The second guy has put away 468.000 sek still he only got 7.3 million sek.

I don't claim responsibility for his math, I think his calculator on the site counts per year and not per month for instance.

Also here in Sweden you normally pay 30% taxes on profit or dividend unless you save in a endowment insurance / with-profits bond there you currently pay 27% of the repo rate / year (I think at least.)

On the other hand people telling you how to get rich would suggest that you buy and keep your stocks more or less forever so you will actually never end up paying any tax on the raised value of the stock but only on the dividends.
Instead you keep them and reinvest the dividends into stocks the whole time until you've got enough stocks that you can live on dividends alone.

Still the point is that the sooner your start the better, time matters, a lot!
So if it's that simple why don't everyone become rich? Probably because people don't save their money for those 45 years without touching them ...

But just think of what would had happened if your parents had saved 100 $ / month for you until you left your home at 18. That's 21 600 $ saved at for you at the age of 18, his calculator would had told you that at 10% average interest over that time you would had got 60 191 $.

But regardless plenty of youth / kids would had started spending the money once they got them, and sure it would had made their lives somewhat easier by that time.

But if they instead had kept them until their retired at the age of 65 they would have had 5 308 687 $ some 47 years later at the same interest. By then at even 2% dividends yearly they would had got (at least) 106 174 $ / year in dividends.

Quite awesome for 21600 invested... And would definitely make life easier once you retired.

(Would suck to die away from it and suck if you think you lose much pleasure in life from saving and living on a tight budget for your whole life. But he mean everyone can save at least 10% of their salary and suggest that people start by putting away 1% of each salary to start with, because very few can claim that they can't live of 99% of their salary. And then they have got used to that they raise that to 2%, and later to 3%, and so on. And eventually they will notice that they do quite well even if they put away 20-30%.)

Re:Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (1)

fredrickleo (711335) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850738)

11.2% interest!

I'm very curious which institution is offering such a generous rate.

Re:Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850976)

No-one will guarantee you 11.2% interest I assume. I said stocks.

I think in the case of Warren Buffett he managed to get 20% but he's an exception =P

Normally I've read 7% for the Stockholm stock market so I don't know where 11.2% comes from. Maybe different time period (I think he said last 50 years) or one of them don't include dividends. Maybe 7% is from 1918, or just after the crash in the 30s, guess all of the crashes make a difference.

But if you where looking at a graph since 1918 the crash in 2007-2008 (unless we've got lots more to come and aren't finished...) would most likely not stick out by much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DJIA_historical_graph_to_jan09_(log).svg [wikipedia.org]

Hard hit around 33, wonder if we'll get there again. Some american (?) in a video on youtube meant it would go down to 1000 ...

That do sound weird now (and also notice the scale is logarithmic) but look at the 30s, from what? 350? to 43 or so? 88% drop? =P

That's not the time to be invested but good luck avoiding it / be sure about it once it happens :)

Notice how it took 25 years to get there again.

I think I saw some graph on total debt vs GDP where it was much higher now than in the 30s to .. 30s levels where passed already at year 2000 or something such.

Anyway, 1950, around 200? Now? 11000.
5500% during those 60 years.
55^(1 / 60) = 1.06906976

So around 7%.

As said, don't know where 11.2 come from, but I guess the index in this case only show stock price, not including dividends. And US stocks normally give higher dividend than Swedish ones I read somewhere.

10000 when you where born = 10 000 * (1.07^65) = 812 728.612

At the age of 65 even without dividends. Add 3% of those .. 10 000 * (1.10^65) = 4 903 707.25

I also read something (don't quote me on it and I don't remember the date of the article) like if you had saved 100 sek on a bank account since 1918 you would have had 621 sek or something such. With stocks you would have had 6200 sek or something such. However if you would had been able to tell the best alternative of the two each month you would have had 242.000.000.000 ;)

But good luck with that :)

Re:Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851018)

Also do understand that fees suck. Interest on interest work just the same where to.

If you have a stock fund with say 1.3% fee per year which invest about as good as the index that may at first sound ok if you're doing say 1.11200 * 0.987 = 1.097544 per year anyway.

However, over 45 years those 1.3 will steal:
1 - (0.987^45) = 0.44502698 of your money ...

I also found a credit card (which suck for the shopkeepers..) which gives 1% bonus on all purchases. Just saving those 1% bonus for say 3% interest at average will make a difference to.

No reason not to ..

Re:Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851022)

There, 13.16, haven't slept yet..

Re:Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850710)

"Lord, give me the chance to prove that winning the lottery won't spoil me."

Anyway, in all seriousness I bet [pun intended] I would be more controlled, although I would have some fun, likely splurging on some nice jewelry for instance
http://magiccards.info/query?q=mox&v=card&s=cname [magiccards.info] :P

Re:Wouldn't leasing it be a better deal? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850796)

Bet they were happy while they were spending it, fool and his money, etc.

fools! (3, Funny)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850224)

That land had 2 bil. worth of oil and minerals in it! Muwwwaahhhaahhhaaaaa... Did I just blew my cover here?

Re:fools! (2, Interesting)

Barny (103770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850640)

Not sure about in America, but in Australia you don't own the mineral wealth under your property.

Re:fools! (5, Informative)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851062)

You don't in America either. In fact, in America, you don't even really own the land. You only own the house and other "improvement" ON the land. You rent your land from the government for which you pay annual rent in the form of Property Tax (this is the feudal relationship between Lord and Sovereign that we fought a revolution to get away from, and we're right back there now).

We have this feudal title system in 48 states. It's possible to own land in allodium only in Texas and Nevada.

Re:fools! (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851284)

Well that's interesting. My parents and several other family members in Pennsylvania are paid money by companies extracting natural gas from the bubble under their properties. Your acreage owned determines the amount you are paid.

While "minerals" aren't natural gas, I'm guessing it's more or less the same thing.

Re:fools! (1)

vakuona (788200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851512)

I don't really know why those families should be paid for the natural resources. In other countries, you don't own any natural resources below the surface. Those rights have to be purchased separately. You could argue everyone owns those resources (i.e. government owns them).

Re:fools! (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851086)

It varies from place to place. In urban and suburban areas, you typically do not own mineral rights. In rural areas you often do own those rights.

Re:fools! (1)

bakes (87194) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851436)

People in Iraq don't own the oil under their land either.

Data Center? (2, Funny)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850258)

Don't you mean... iOrchard ??

eminent domain (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33850282)

I am surprised they didn't grab the land using eminent domain.

Re:eminent domain (1)

DeeKayWon (155842) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850388)

It's not 2005 anymore. Most state governments hated the Kelo v. City of New London decision and passed laws to prevent similar things from happening. North Carolina was one of those states.

Re:eminent domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33850400)

Thankfully it's still just the state that can force you to sell your land and not private companies, but if more people share this delusion it's only a matter of time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

Re:eminent domain (0, Flamebait)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850418)

Since when was Apple a government? (Non-government) Companies can't grab land claiming eminent domain. You're an idiot, aren't you.

Re:eminent domain (1)

bored_engineer (951004) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850434)

AC is referring to cooperation between government and business. A few years ago, this [wikipedia.org] was highly publicized and resulted in changes in several states' laws.

Re:eminent domain (0, Offtopic)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850454)

Thanks. I amend my statement. The entire of the US judicial system is idiotic.

Re:eminent domain (1)

towermac (752159) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851194)

I believe Sandra Day O'Connor quit over that one.

no problem (1)

postmortem (906676) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850302)

iLand is well priced as other 'i' products!

Jobs/Pixar had a better idea (4, Funny)

dn15 (735502) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850352)

What, so they were too good to attach a bunch of balloons to their house and fly it away? Greedy bastards.

Not so far from the truth (1)

voss (52565) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851246)

For the 1.7 million they will get, they can afford to buy a new piece of land and have the house moved down to it.
Obviously not by thousands of personal sized balloons.

For Those Curious (2, Informative)

pgn674 (995941) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850428)

500,000 square feet == 11.48 acres

Re:For Those Curious (1)

postmortem (906676) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850468)

or 1.148 if building has 10 floors.

Re:For Those Curious (1)

ShadowFalls (991965) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850494)

Ofcourse the article mentioned that the land was needed for part of... Which probably means Apple probably already have bought all the other land and needed that one remaining piece for their jigsaw puzzle that will become their new data center. My guess is the couple knew this and held out to get as much as they could from them. Smart decision really.

Re:For Those Curious (2, Informative)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850502)

500,000 square feet == 11.48 acres

== 46 450 m^2

Re:For Those Curious (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850580)

500,000 square feet == 11.48 acres

== 46 450 m^2

= 1.147842 square furlongs

Re:For Those Curious (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850644)

Which is around 114.7842 square chains :)

Re:For Those Curious (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850602)

Meters square? Pshaw I want it in Square meters.

Re:For Those Curious (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851006)

In other words, about 4.6 hectares.

Welcome, to the real world! (2, Informative)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850616)

Or for the normal part of the world:
1 acre = 4 046.85642 square meters
4 047^(1 / 2) = 63.6160357 meters
1 700 000 / 4047 = 420 $ / square meter

500 000 * (square feet) = 46 451.52 square meters
And yeah:
46 451.52 / 4 046.86 = 11.4784104

11.48 * 1.7 = 19.5 million for all the real estate needed at the same price per square meter or 2% of the total cost for the data center even if they had paid the same amount for everyone.

Re:Welcome, to the real world! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851084)

Careful with conversions between imperial units and modern units. There's more than one definition of "acre" (resulting from there being more than one definition of "yard"). Americans still use units based on the area of farm land that a man with an ox can plow in one day. Don't use so many significant digits and avoid the impression of precision when converting or working with imperial units. I recommend using one significant digit: 1 acre = 0.4 hectare (=0.4*10000m^2). Where more precision is needed, ambiguous units should not be used in the first place.

Re:Welcome, to the real world! (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851132)

Americans still use units based on the area of farm land that a man with an ox can plow in one day.

lol, is that belgian blue or highland cattle?

What kind of soil and how much stone material are there in the soil? Are they assuming no rain for the last week?

I left the numbers for others to judge but cut them at 420$ and 19.5 million.

Sure it should had read 400$ and 20 million to be somewhat safe.

But with numbers like "1" (billion and acres) that can still be infinite close to 50% off so .. :D

Heck, by then even 20 million wouldn't be correct ... 10-30 million? Or what? Maybe round it of downwards to 0?

0 million for the land and 0 hundreds of $ per square meter.

Re:For Those Curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851496)

assuming only one floor

So... (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850472)

They're going to kill the fish in the pond in order to build the data center?

Re:So... (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850658)

With environmentalism screwing up the sacrificial market, you can't get away with just offering human lives.

Re:So... (3, Informative)

jareds (100340) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850740)

No, the pond is on the 49-acre property that the couple bought with the proceeds of the sale, not the 1-acre property that they sold.

Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33850478)

Good job sticking it to the man.

That's not such a high price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33850508)

I have a 9000 SF lot in a 1950's neighborhood in Anchorage, AK.

At $75,000, that works out to $363,000 per acre. I'm not impressed.

Property speculation (2, Informative)

drsquare (530038) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850632)

Beats working for a living. Just ask Donald Trump.

Re:Property speculation (2, Informative)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850798)

Nothing new. Around here, house prices are determined by professional valuers who have collectively inflated the prices to at least 5 times what they are worth. What did you think caused the crisis? It is just the belief in made-up value, followed by a cold-turkey reality check.

Bargain (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 3 years ago | (#33850924)

That's a Bargain. I live in a rural area where 1 acre (4046.86 m^2) of building land would set you back roughly 2 to 2.5 times the price of 1.7M$. Land prices increase exponentially towards the city centre. If you have the money you can buy one m^2 (10.7 Ft^2) for 120kUD$.

president held DOWn buy 'friendly fire'? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851072)

we'll be needing someone with bigger balls, & some/more integrity, thanks. we're finished with lying suckups trying to scare/disempower all of US little peepoles. if the gov't can't work for US/our intentions, then like any errant employees, out they go. we need to stop acting like monkeys, but we probably won't, until all the bananas are gone? the bleeding can/will/must be stopped, for any healing to begin. thanks again.

mynuts won; so on-topic it hurts (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851138)

yet another storIE of fabulous wealth dropping from 'above'? if it weren't for trivial stuff that doesn't matter at all, we might take pause to look at what does really matter? the corepirates give, as well as receive? we don't think that the tactics used merits the entire population being held under hypenosys of the body, mind & spirit for much longer? not that it matters?

Mis-characterized (4, Informative)

kenh (9056) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851342)

Apple paid $1.7M for an acre adjoining their current datacenter FOR EXPANSION. Apple is not building a 500,000 square foot data center on a one acre lot as the post above would have you believe - to do so would require that Apple build the datacenter at least 12-14 stories tall, since one acre of land is only 43,560 square feet, and after taking in to consideration easements ten largest foot print for the building would be, say, 30,000 square feet (give or take)...

Thanks CaptainDefragged for link to actual Bloomberg piece on this purchase: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-05/apple-s-data-needs-mean-1-7-million-jacuzzi-for-carolina-pair.html?cmpid=yhoo [bloomberg.com]

Re:Mis-characterized (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851532)

...to do so would require that Apple build the datacenter at least 12-14 stories tall

Steve would use this layout [wordpress.com] . When the iLife Clock blinks, it's time to think different.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>