Keeping Plans Secret; Is it Legal or even Otherwise a Good Idea?

Critical members here may understand the legal and financial issues of=20
this matter well, but in case they don't and in case my assertions are=20
way off here, I'll state them. My assertions, guesses really, relate=20
to legal and project financial risk sensitivity to means and limits of=20
releasing plans as a function of project time line.

It is my guess, that as a private citizen I have the right to=20
selectively promote development schemes to developers as a means to=20
make small personal profit for the time I may have put into the=20
planning work and to better ensure the implementation of such plans.=20=20
Both of these goals would be more likely reached if the plans were=20
kept away from all but those committed to act positively towards these=20
goals. This is risky, for NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements) and=20
judicious investigation of potential developers can't guarantee those=20
so inclined, in my mind anyway, from making the goals harder to attain=20
by buying property in the targeted area and forcing costly=20
condemnation of property before development can begin.

It is my guess that it is legal for someone to buy property in the=20
targeted area with NDAs in place and fight in condemnation court for=20
high buyouts, or at least the Big Developers might not sign such NDAs=20
in the first place. Any legal insight here?

In a non-selective, public, plan-disclosure-process, even if it such=20
plans are just a generally stated goal of a carfree development of=20
some size range in some general local area (say via a broadcast=20
Request for Proposals), it would seem, such property values would rise=20
if the plan is deemed feasible, which would make the plan less=20
feasible=85.

Can we assume that whatever critical leadership immerges here or in a=20
similar interest group is removed from the requirements, competitive=20
bidding, of governmental property owners wishing to develop property=20
they own? Is there a way to keep the plans private, keep property=20
from being purchased and later held on to not for development but for=20
selling profit only, but still seek competitive proposals from=20
developers?

Regarding carfreecity list(s) members, it might be helpful especially=20
where developers can't or chose not to carry all the financial weight=20
that will not be covered by civil, public funding, that financially=20
able list(s) members be allowed or possibly even previously committed=20
to investment in targeted sight development.

Having sufficient property owned by friendly project committed parties=20
would do much to ensure local authorities that the project is likely=20
to be a winner (i.e. increase local coffers).

But how are the plans be kept secret from the public until enough land=20
is bought up by friendly parties, while allowing review by such=20
presumably small fry investors when compared to developers, who still=20
need sufficient disclosure for investment decision or oversight to=20
insure match to previous commitment?=20=20

It seems to me that once enough land is so purchased the plans can be=20
presented to the Public, most positively via web based map=20
applications like ArcIMS and AutoMAPGuide. Good public support would=20
just further enable governmental support.

Of course, purchases would then be risky in that the development might=20
not receive the necessary governmental support.

Can positive buy up be initiated without public project disclosure=20
after governmental entities commit? Not likely I would think; such a=20
commitment to secrecy public offices would constitute 'buddy' favors=20
even if the plans were conceived by the private parties and would=20
probably be illegal via statutes created to make such favor driven=20
commitments much more unlikely.

Paul Parma
www.venetianpassage.com/private.html