Telegram story. Should have been done two years ago! Key Lines "The city agreed to give PharmaSphere a $100,000 microloan and approved the company for a $2.5 million loan from a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development program". Then further "Mr. McGourthy said the city spent no money on its deal with PharmaSphere. By revoking the microloan and HUD loan, the city now frees up that money for lending to other projects, he said. Terminating the land sale also means the city can also put the parcel back out for bid."
It seems then that Pharmasphere never got any microloan money, but it does appear that the City of Worcester did in fact get the 2,500,000 HUD loan since we can now use it for other projects. It does then appear this deal has in fact cost the City some money since somone needs to be paying the interest on the loan.
2 comments:
a. Another prima facia case for bureacrats not getting involved in private business interests/deals.
b. Another prima facia case for city not getting involved in the loan business or the loan guarantee business.
c. we still do not know who greased this deal for what... 3 or 4 years?
d. we even installed new sidewalks here???...which are not even shoveled. WTF even bother with building new sidewalks if no one shovels em?
e. wth is the nusiance control officer(s)? vegetation clearly well in excess of 12 inches and 2 city officials standign right in front of it showcasing teh site to teh camera's ........priceless
As you said in prior thread........color me frustrated today, too.........my back aches from shovleing and lugging coin to city hall yesterday to pay for all this BS
OMG i wish i could copy and paste the word verficication:
INGORED ..almsot ignored
"Mr. McGourthy said the city spent no money on its deal with PharmaSphere"
Quote from T&G???
Again less than complete disclosure. Ok supposedly we spent no money........but we lost 4yrs of property tax revenue..whats that total up to?.
Thanx
Post a Comment