June 27, 2012

Go Local NY Times Agrees to pay clean-up?

Title of story, click here .     No way can this be true, let me explain.    Everyone knew that there was contamination there and if you own a building that has 21 E problems you own them forever, you can not walk away from them.    As result owners usually have to perfrom remediation before they are able to sell. Or it they do sell they come to agreement as to how much the seller will pay for future remediation. 

Here is how the NY Times and WBDC sale probably went down:

  • They agree to very low sale price of 300,000 because of contamination
  • WBDC not too worried since they think that they will
  • WBDC agrees not to hold the NY Times repsonsible for any clean-up costs and maybe there agreed to a number.  Think I read that somewhere.   Lets say they agreed to reimburse back 200,000?
My guess is that if there was any vote by the New York Times, it was to pay the agree reimbursment at the time of sale.   No way is the NewYork Times pay all the clean-up costs, since if they were they would have never sold the building for 300,000.   

1 comment:

Jahn said...

Color me confused. T&G says WFD graduated 31 new FF'ers last Friday and evidently we didnt have the money to pay them last Fri. Now today T&G reports Washington will give Worc $2.7M to pay the wages for 17 of the 31 new recruits for 2 years. So I guess we reaaly did have the money to pay them????????

FWIW, I think the T&G means to pay the total compensation (not just wages for 17 FF'ers?????. The reason I say this is that $2.7M to pay for 17 FF'ers for 2 years comes out to $79,000 per year per new FF'er....unless out FF'er are starting out at a 79,000 per yr wage which I tend to doubt.

SO it costs taxpayers 79,000+ per year to hire a new FF'er. I'd be curious to know that that breaks down?

50K for wages? ($24 per hr?)
1k for payroll taxes?
13K for health ins. ??
1k for uniforms ????


What is the other 14k for??