In the newspaper today a TIF is being approved because
TIF is needed because the build-out costs associated with rehabilitating an older building such as this ended up higher than expected.
When are build-oout costs less then expected??? To have this as a basis for the granting of a TIF seems a little lax shall I say? Does this set a precedence??
Same Time Next Year
-
It’s been nearly a year since I wrote about the problems that come from
having 11 bosses who are not on the same page about anything, as well as
suggestion...
4 months ago
5 comments:
can I get a TIF for the Azel Drake House at coirner of Dewey & Austin...being on the local Historic Register has killed my build-out budget to:>)
Bill wrote: "Does this set a precedence??"
The short answer is that although this may set a precedence, the city of Worcester does not honor precedence, nor anything else but their own short-sighted agenda.
Yesterday after I read this I penned a blog but the darn thing didnt go through. I was PO'ed when writing it ..what else is new :)
I agree wholeheartedly......basically it is... hey we developers screwed up and we want Worcester Taxpayers to pony up for our mistakes.
This building is to the rear of and beside the old Palsons Office supplies building. For years it was a wallpaper store (& warehouse?). How much longer are the taxpayers of Worcester going to be unrolled, cut, pasted, finacially raped, and hung on the wall to dry to subsidize not only private dev'ment, but also the mistakes of private dev'ers.
Alos lets see what the place is actually assessed for after all is said and done.....especailly look 10 years from now to see if the place is assessed at $4M
I also think the parking there is weak to non-existent. How many people work in the DA's office and where will they park and what of those who have to access the DA's office....where will they park? Wonder if they got a parking deal next door with the gentleman who had the audacity to house 4 unrelated Assumption college students in his west side rental unit........thereby creating a minor technical violation of the zonoing ordinace and gettign his name blabbed all over the T&G and local media........meanwhile Worc Common Grd has had continual violation over on Mason st. now 2 or 3 years......no one at Code dept says squat and fine is $300 per day ..what a great way to raise revenue for the city 3 yrs x 365 day per years x $300 = $325,000..nice haul if you can get Worc Common grd to pony it up
I meant to give Nick K an ATTA BOY for a financial type article on thsi TIF that has some numbers detail in it.
Good job Nick K.
Next, I'll expect you to follow through on this fraudulent misrepresenation the the manager and city council are touting re: Clarks Pilot Payment which they say is 262,000 which is true. Only problem is little or nothing is said about the taxable property Clarks owns that will come off teh tax rolls that is part of this Pilot deal. This represent 155,000 of lost tax revenue EVERY IN TO PERPETUITY. No one at city Hall will even mention the issue.
Nick, Tom ,or Shaun...this would make a great topic and an easy column about a year from now....maybe when we celebrate the 1st Anniversary of Clarks alleged 262,000 Pilot Payment.
Looking like a fine weekend here in New England.
Off topic but here is more exciting Worcester Airport news from today's Boston Herald -
http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1295930
Not only is Direct Air hoping to launch service to San Juan next year but are eyeing other Carribean destinations also.
It looks like they will have to change the airport's name to Worcester International Airport.
Post a Comment