「難航する個人の土地確保の足がかりにしたい考えだ」

除染土１年分の保管場用地にめど 大熊・双葉の工業団地：朝日新聞デジタル


Hello there guys, once again I'm beaten by an article from asahi shinbun, this time I'm trying to figure out precisely what the bolded sentences means:

東京電力福島第一原発事故で出た除染土などを保管する政府の中間貯蔵施設計画で、福島県大 熊、双葉両町の予定地にある工業団地敷地の少なくとも約７割が確保される見通しであることが３日、土地を所有する企業への取材でわかった。施設予定地全体 の２％に満たないが、最初の１年で運び込む分に足る広さとみられる。難航する個人の土地確保の足がかりにしたい考えだ。

According to alc.co.jp 難航 has a meaning for 交渉 related usages, "run into rough waters"

In this case 難航する is related to 個人 only, or to the entire 「個人の土地確保」? the latter seems more likely to me, and if its the case, does the meaning of this entire line revolves around something like "(government) wants to make a foothold for [entering in the rough waters] of acquiring/negotiating a private plot of land" ???

and, later on:

両団地に土地を所有する企業１３社に朝日新聞が聞いたところ、うち８社が、用地売却に応じる意向を明かした。大半が政府側にも方針を伝えたという。残り５ 社は回答を控えたり、連絡が取れなかったりした。まとまった面積を所有する地権者らが売却に応じる意向を明らかにするのは初めてだ。

The majority of companies (among the 8 contacted by the journal) informed their policies to the government? is it so?


thank you guys

Yes, 難航する modifies 個人の土地確保, especially 確保.
The subject of 確保 is the government, not 個人.
難航する expresses the present state. 確保 is already 難航している now.

That's the majority of companies among the 8 who are 用地売却に応じる, not "contacted by the journal (that's １３社)".

Toritoribe said:

Yes, 難航する modifies i の土地確保, especially 確保.
The subject of 確保 is the government, not 個人.
難航する expresses the present state. 確保 is already 難航している now.

That's the majority of companies among the 8 who are 用地売却に応じる, not "contacted by the journal (that's １３社)".

Click to expand...

Thanks Tori,
While things are still a bit blurry in my mind, (ｆor the 1st question, that is) and I'm not willing to attempt a translation again, If I break things down in:

"Government wants a safe position(foothold)/ in this stormy acquisition of a private plot of land/

I'm -3 GMT here, 12 hours behind japan and my head is kinda dizzy right now, did I get it right now?


ps> about the 2nd question, my bad, they asked 13 companies, 8 answered, 5 refrained or couldnt be contacted at all, I did misread it.

Yes, your interpretation is correct.