Come listen to a story
about a man named Jed
A poor mountaineer
barely kept his family fed
Then one day
he was shootin up some food
and up from the ground came a bubblin crude
Oil that is
Black gold
Texas tea
It appears that our intrepid Standard-Examiner ace city-beat reporter Scott Schwebke has identified the problem requiring the Ogden City Council Rec Center bond-vote to have been once again re-calendered, this time to August 16 of this year.
Oil contamination was apparently found on the old mall site during an earlier city-prepared environmental study. While city officials express confidence that this is only a minor problem, GE Commercial, one of the lenders "involved in financing the recreation center," isn't taking city officials word for it, and has reportedly demanded preparation of an independent study, which will reportedly take another couple of weeks.
It would seem, gentle readers, that this situation is truly evolving into one where Ogden City government literally can't spent our tax money fast enough.
For those Weber County Forum readers in far-flung places who don't have their own hard-copy of this morning's Std-Ex edition, you can read Scott Schwebke's entire article here.
I'm considering setting up a formal reader poll on this, and maybe I'll put one up later on. In the meantime, what about it, WCF readers? Will the old mall site ultimately check out "clean," as the Ogden City administration insists; or will our downtown dirt-pile prove to be floating on a sea of oil?
Place your bets here, folks.
Update 7/31/05 12:02 p.m. MT: Okay, here's the new poll:
Take My Poll
Update 8/3/05 10:14 p.m. MT: Due to the high volume of comments on this thread, I've shut down comments here. You may, however, continue your comments on the Union Square topic on this new thread that I've now set up for discussion of this topic.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
73 comments:
It appears that some kind of environmental study, which the Mayor trivialized as per a newspaper article last week, has found something at the mall site, the future home of the Mayor's High Adventure Recreation Center, the savior of downtown Ogden. That something is OIL.
I'm not sure if the study was done prior to the City's purchase of the mall, but if so, they certainly made a huge mistake in not addressing the implications at that time. And if no study was made at that time, one most certainly should have been conducted. One of the worst things that can happen to a property site is to have haz-mat discovered. The delays and costs can be enormous. One other thing, if the haz-mat is found under your ownership, you own the stuff for eternity. Even though it might be dug up and hauled off, it remains your responsibility.
And once again, the Mayor takes a less than concerned position: "It isn't a widespread problem. It's very isolated. It isn't a plume or anything." How the hell does he know that? This COULD BE the tip of the iceberg. In the past, production and manufacturing businesses surrounded that area. The Ogden Standard Examiner was on the corner of 24th & Kiesel, and who knows what solvents and inks happened to spill and seap into the ground? Read Brothers, a business dealing with Western goods, occupied a building close to where the recreation center is planned to be built. Besides selling dry goods and such, was tanning and hide processing going on, and if so, did anything spill and leech into the ground? Wasn't a tire store located between 24th & 23rd, on Grant? I wonder what happened there? Nobody seems to know, or care. Any gas stations in the area?
And then there's this Mark Johnson character. He doesn't anticipate difficulties associated with the petroleum discovery. "We are working through it," he states. Now, that's a comfort to all concerned, especially the bonders and bankers. Johnson's "working through it."
This lax attitude about the findings of due diligence from our City officials is stupifying. They just don't seem to get it. Again, this is why the Gang of 6 should not be engaged in development, for it appears that they are out of their league.
P.S.
Ozboy, I was first to post this thread. How d'ya like them apples?
My guess is that a good ole boy used the area to change his oil. They should look for traces of chaw near the oil.
Unfortunately, Utahns have been such good stewards of the land that finding contaminants on land being readied for development is pretty much par for the course.
There will be a pile of money that goes to lawyers. If the city plays the game right, the Federal government will pay for part of the clean up.
It is sad, but in a highly taxed economy good things go to those who waste.
There was a mechanic's shop located on the east side of Grant between 24th and 25th street. The shop was quite large and stretched all the way through the block to Kiesel. This would have been in the 1920's and following.. It was also a gas station, and therefore probably had underground tanks for storage.
I don't know whether something like that could be causing the contamination or not, but I am sure there are people living now who would remember this mechanic's shop and perhaps know more about it, maybe even what they did with oil, etc., or where the tanks are or if they were removed. But yes, ec,, there was a gas station in the area.
There is a risk here. If they don't break ground by either Dec 1 or Dec 31 I can't remember which, they will lose the RDA tax increment and the deal will come apart. And if that happens the tax increment will be gone forever, or until the legislature changes things again.
It is absoulutely fabulous that they have discovered oil at Matt's mud hole! Does this mean we all get to move to Beverly Hills?
PS - EC
Sorry that you had to lose the ranch like this. Did all the horses and horses asses go also?
The tax increment, GONE FOREVER!
OH NO! Not forever?!?
Guess I'm going to Beverley Hills with Ozboy, now that I've lost the ranch and the tax increment funds are going, going, gone....
Here's a song, to the tune of The Beverley Hills Billies:
Let me tell a story of a guy named Matt,
Bought the old mall and tore in down flat;
Forgot to test the land then someone found the crude,
Now instead of the rec center, Matt's gotta sell food
Fast food that is....
No rock wall to climb....
No wind tunnel....
No place for your dime....
Right on Mr. Mayor, you have the alternative to Mid-east oil right here in your hands! No more rising gasoline prices. No more shortages. Just hope that when you folk bought the Mall, you had the sense to include the mineral rights.
One thing that you all must understand is that it is not uncommon to have contamination in soil. The Mayor is right on this one. Working in the construcion industry, I can tell you that soil tests are frequent and it is very common to have contamination. Sometimes it is not as simple as oil. Sometimes the comtamination is things like lead or arsenick (SP?). However, many times nothing comes of it because levels are too low. We'll have to wait and find out how bad this is, but trust me, this is certainly not uncommon, so you can all settle down and stop claiming the sky is falling.
Hey Utmoboy, we are just having a little fun. Lighten up, you will live a lot longer and have a lot more fun if you learn to laugh at idiocy in government. This situation in Ogden is so sad that if we don't keep our sense of humor it will drag us all down and then we will not only be broke but miserable as well.
You are right of course, the "oil" discovery will most likely not be our ticket to fame and fortune and a limo full of Hollywood starletts. Instead it will probably be but a minor blip on the mayor's inexorable road to building this incredibly stupid and infernal Wreck Center he is hell bent on. But hey we can dream can't we?
Get your suf board waxed, your bowling shoes shined, your parachute packed cause buddy your gonna need em, this damn thing is gonna to be built and to hell with reason and sanity. The twirp is on a mission and he aint a gonna be denied...
OK,
I can accept that. A little fun is definately needed with some of the situations around here. I will definately try to lighten up, or at least try to get when people are being sarcastic and when they are actually on the offensive. Honestly, my sense of humor is one of my better qualities, it is merely a bit difficult to get your sense of humor out when typing. Although I try to do it a bit on my blog (c'mon, Chevy Chase with an Afro? that's priceless).
It's ok, utmorman, I have a hard time too sometimes trying to figure out over the internet if someone is serious or not. Since you can't hear the tone of one's voice over the web, it can make it harder.
Interesting that Rudizink would begin today's post with the Beverly Hill Billies' theme song, which I post scripted in my post of last night. It is fun isn't it? And the Wreck will be built....BUT AT WHAT COST?
Utmoboy, I have years of experience in land development, etc. and even though finding haz-mat is common, it's still SERIOUS, as it involves clean-up, further testing, delays, and might be the tip of an iceberg that's so freaking big it can't be melted. Just because this oil isn't in a "plume," Godfrey's word, doesn't mean its not but one tentacle in a ganglion.
Again, who'se running the show down there. Each delay is a set-back and each set-back is a money sieve, a sieve that the tax paying citizens have to re-fill. $20 some million and counting, and not a footings been dug or a brick been laid or a vote been taken. That does not exude much confidence in the people over the management of this project, which is OVER 4 years in the making.
It is rather interesting that the Lord Mayor and his brain trust are now partially blaming the delay and increasing costs of the Rec center on legal challenges! By that I assume they mean the lame effort by the dead end gang led by our resident crank Moyes! Well if you recall that so called challenge amounted to a half a fly bite that the city swept away with one minor swat and 20 minutes before the judge on one occasion! Some big money delay that was!!
This is one more little piece of evidence to show how dis-ingenious this gang really is. The thing has been dragging on for four years now, which is about three and a half years further back than the first stirring of opposition. The mess is a direct result of Godfey's and his so called brain trust's collective incompetence.
Throw the bums out in November!
"Enthused Citizen said...
Interesting that Rudizink would begin today's post with the Beverly Hill Billies' theme song, which I post scripted in my post of last night. It is fun isn't it?"
Rudizink seldom hesitates to shamelessly appropriate to his own use a good idea when he sees one.
Thanks for bringin up the "Beverly Hillbillies" analogy.
And yes, blogging is quite a bit of fun, innit?
Ya damn rights, glassman. Are these Development guys earning their money or just getting paid? And who'se this Johnson guy, anyway? You'd think for the money they all get paid, someone would have seen something like this coming.
EC, I have to comment on this. It has always stupified me to see municipalities getting involved in real estate development.
Because of the possible conflict of interest between the city's officials (let's discount backroom dealing for right now) and the citizens of said city, why are cities allowed to own any property other than easements and their own buildings? It should be illegal. How does this work to the benefits of the citizens at all to have a city government involved in private business dealings?
I think the problem goes much deeper than a simple "oops, we forgot to check the hazmat situation" or "oops, we forgot to get a clear title to the land" - a $5 million dollar oops to the Woodbury Corp.
Our country was built... built ... on the idea of PRIVATE PROPERTY. That is what distinguished us from every other country in the world at that time.
The weird machinations of the city in this rec-center development is simply a symptom of government getting involved in the "semi-private" sector. Government does not have to compete... therefore, market pressure does not come to bear on their "projects". If you look hard enough and pay enough, you can find anyone to validate any proposal you have on the table... or pie in the sky.
I agree... dear citizens... that something... something needed to be done with Ogden City Mall. However, I do not believe that all the options were explored, including the option of having private investors do something with the site.
I was in a "town hall" meeting with the newly elected mayor in the year 2000 when options for the mall site were discussed. A gentleman with 30 years of civic planning and real estate development experience stood up in that meeting and gave a short missive that was summarily dismissed.
His comments... before you tear down "The Mall", you should have everything in order and signed by the interested development parties. All studies should be done to determine that proper due diligence has been conducted and that all parties are in good standing before taking one brick from the walls. He warned... if you don't have everything in place, we will have a "huge mudhole in the middle of downtown" that will be many times worse than the current mall building. He said this to Mayor Matthew Godfrey, Rick Safsten, and other council members present at that meeting.
Not one of us, who is in business for him or herself, would break ground on any project until the necessary contracts, agreements, and due diligence were signed, sealed, and delivered. Why then does the city administration view this project differently? It is because they have no real stake in the project. They are not the "real" owners of it. They are not driven by market pressures. We, the citizens, pay for it. We, the citizens, pay for everything. It is our hard earned dollars in that mudhole.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, our sewage and water system deteriorates. Our infrastructure falls apart. Our services are cut. What medium- to large-sized business will relocate here when we don't have the infrastructure?
Our location is attractive, labor is cheap and mostly well-educated, and our scenery is second to none. The city should be focusing on improving our educational and municipal services. They should not be focusing on becoming land-owners. Maybe some of those funds should be used for a little marketing of Ogden instead.
I would like to see what would happen if those "tax-increments" were used instead to create citizen land-ownership of the Ogden Mall site. It is a great location with plenty of in-town and outlying areas to produce the necessary marketplace. It is an attractive site for building. For those who say that Ogden needs a draw... what about all those cool businesses that existed here before the Mall went up? Those were a draw. 25th Street is a draw. The private sector does a much better job than government in creating a tax-base (a central theme in my belief structure... maybe I am a real conservative).
Private property and the idea of private property has been the biggest boon to the U.S. that ever occured. That is the reason this nation is so wealthy... and a superpower. The protection of everything property-oriented from land to intellectual properties is the very basis of our economy.
In a few words, the city should focus on its duties as a government , and let the citizens figure out the commerce. Just as "emminent domain" for RDA uses is now illegal, property ownership of anything other than easments, parks, and municipal buildings should be illegal for city governments. Otherwise, the city is obliquely involved in competing directly with its own tax-base. Talk about a conflict of interest.
It is my belief that cities stifle their tax-base with such tactics. If they attracted businesses by using the marketplace-sense, they would focus on their business of delivering top-notch services and watch the tax revenue roll in. Cities that out-competed through using their natural resources (a.k.a. beautiful surroundings, top-notch services, etc., etc.) would build tax bases that were stable (possibly even immense), and make disgruntled citizens like me hush up.
View what one citizen did with his project. Tell me that any city could have done better after viewing this. T. Owen's Mill Hats off. Beautiful work, Mr. Owen.
I have a question. This is a sincere question.
I hear constantly quotes that the money for the rec center is "all going to be made back by tax increments from other RDA projects."
Tax increments, as I understand them, work as follows: If a developer buys a site the property taxes of which are 20K a year, and puts something on it which ups the value of the property, that developer still only pays the original 20K for a specified period of time. This is done to make developing worth the developer's while, so he/she won't get socked with huge property taxes in the initial stages of the project.
Now. Ogden City has unfinished projects all over the place. In fact, they even say "previous unfinished projects" will make all this Rec Center money back.
To me, unfinished projects are not making any money for Ogden City. So what they are saying, perhaps, is that all these unfinished projects are costing them less in property taxes (increments.)
But there is no money being made. All that is happening is they are paying out less in property taxes, but they still are paying out.
I guess what I am saying is that paying out less in property taxes than one otherwise would to me does not equal making money.
I feel that I am missing something, but the question is---how is the city going to make money on tax increments from unfinished city owned projects? How is this supposed to work out in the long term?
Great minds out there--please explain!!
Toad Hall, your posting was absolutely eloquent. It was succinct and right to the point and I couldn't agree with your premise more. The 2000 meeting results you mention don't surprise me, as many times "Public Comments" have been offered, prior to votes in the City Council meetings, and ALL are summarily dismissed. It's as if the people don't exist. I feel most of the Council, Wicks and Garcia excepted, have a near disdain for the citizen offerings.
Now the Wreck, as Ozboy so aptly puts it, is in serious trouble. Once again the powers to be are minimizing this trouble, and we, the people, get to sit on the sidelines and watch this folley move forward, backward, sideways, down.
I agree, private and commercial property for the most part, should be in private hands, save that which is necessary for the government's needs. As for the government, there is no competition, they are the law, the money is free, the individual risk is non-existent. When government moves into a mall-type situation, these factors have to influence the deal, and look what we have on our hands now.
A very good, thought provoking post, with Owen's Rock Mill a great example of what the private citizen can do. You should be running for office. Thanks for your words.
I do not understand why people keep insisting that the city did not try to get the private sector involved in the mall project. They did, The Boyer Company had it under contract for a year. The mall had to be torn down. On a scale from a-f the old mall when it was built was a D- at best, it was deemed highest and best use to tear that thing down. The city tried to work with Whichard properties from N. Carolina who bought it from cigna. He was just trying to shop it around, he wasted 2 years of our time right there. Ogden had to take this matter into there own hands the other option was to let it all die for another 30 years. Citiventure was involved, but that was right after 9/11, and there were big disagreements about what rents could bring in, and it was citiventure that wanted the rec center to make this thing go, which at the time the city was not sold on the necessity of the rec center, upon further evaluations it was made quite clear no rec center no development, nobody I mean nobody was interested in Ogden. In the near future we are going to hear some interesting things about Hotels in the area both new, and especially existing. These things are happening because of the rec center, and Gondola master plan.
Dian:
Let me take a shot at this tax increment question. This is the way I think it works. It is a bit convoluted as the politico;s designed it that way so we wouldn't understand it. I would hope someone with superior knowledge will step forward if I am wrong.
The increment is the difference between what the property paid originaly and the taxes paid on the improved property. Whoever ends up owning the improved property (typically not the developer) will in fact pay the full new tax rate. However the difference between what the original tax was and what the new tax is (the increment) goes to pay off the bond that the developer floated to pay for "cleaning up of blight" and infastructure work and sometimes the buildings themselves. Blight incidently is the main qualifier for any RDA. No blight, no RDA project.
That "increment of tax" that then goes directly into the pocket's of the developer and his posse would normally go to all of the taxing entities that you see on your normal tax bill - like schools, counties, cities, mosquito abatement, etc.
The bottom line is that RDA tax increment is a direct gift to the bottom line of the developer. It is a scam that grew out of RDA laws that were originally designed to clean up inner city slums with a lot of abandoned buildings. City's now routinely declare a perfectly decent area or even a pasture as blighted so they can get in on this collosal slopping at the public trough. The only people that are benefitted in any way are the developers, the city bureaucrats that are getting bigger empires, lawyer (of course), bond dealers and other assorted gamers of the system.
The developers get in these projects with this free money that comes out of the hides of the afore mentioned taxing entities. They then develope them and unload them and walk away with millions of free money on top of what they would normally make in the development.
These other taxing entities are then burdened with the growth caused by these RDA projects but they don't have the corresponding tax revenue to cover the additional costs so they then have to become the bad guys by raising every ones taxes! Just like has happened and is going to happen again in good old Weber County.
Property tax bills are out this week, look at them and see if your taxes went down or even stayed the same on all of those line items on that form your getting in the mail from Weber county. If these entities were getting their fair share of the existing taxes then they would not have to be tacking on these increases. These increases are a direct consequence of all of these RDA projects, the vast majority of them being in Ogden city. Every one in the county gets to pay for Matt's follies.
Free enterprise will follow the market. If the business is there private companies will move in and build without these tax money give aways by these deplorable politicians that treat our money like it came in a Monopoly game.
They then insult our intelligence by telling us that it all is for the common good! I say BS, how is it for any of our benefit for this pack of jackels to make a load of money on our backs for development that will happen anyway?
City government should be taking care of the city not running around doing big time deals that wouldn't float if it were not for the free tax money give away at their heart.
These people are scoundrels that should be thrown out of office at the very first opportunity, like November!
Come on get real, what does Tom Owens Mill renovation have to do with jack squat, especially our downtown I've heard enough about it, I'd rather hear about Ostertag coming back to the Jazz than Tommy's Rockmill Restoration.
Dian, don't let these guys fool you. You should have seen this place before 99' It has come a long way thanks to an aggressive Mayor who is not afraid of change. We have a long way to go, and we are in the 11th hour waiting to bust through to stardom those who stay the course instead of arbitrarily mocking will be rewarded.
It is the Mayor who forced the federal government to put 4,000 IRS jobs downtown, and construction of the Twin Rivers Complex. Mayor Godfrey found a loophole to pull this off. They had sights elsewhere they did NOT want to go downtown, its kind of funny how everyone forgets about all of this stuff that the Lord Mayor has done for Ogden.
I am post happy because I was silenced for a while. Check out the last article posted at thegoodinogden.blogspot.com if you don't believe me about how this placed has changed in the last 5 years inspite of what these guys would like you to believe. What a great article. Great job Utmorman.
UTmorMan's site is a good one. He put on a great photo montage with his last piece.
I defy you though, Mr. President, to give us any evidence that even a dime of the RDA "haircut money" that is derived from any of those beautiful places in UTmorMAN's photo montage ever went anywhere other than back to the RDA that sponsored and promoted each such project.
That's one of the big problems with RDAs. They're effectively perpetual, and NONE of the increased increment taxes that are EVER generated from such projects EVER wind up in the hands of the taxpayers themselves.
Instead, they are always craftily funneled back to the RDS's, to support the brain trusts who inhabit such agencies, and to fund further creative projects to keep the "haircut money" from EVER going back to the taxpayers, or other competing taxing agencies.
The Recreation Center is a good example of this. Rather than finally relinquishing the tax increment haircut money from TEN RDA projects, Ogden City is hell-bent on returning them to the Rec Center RDA project, just so an office full of overpaid fatcats can keep their jobs.
It's an endless cycle. No individual property taxpayer ever benefits in an economic sense from these projects, as the tax increment dollars always end up being recycled back to the scammers and schemers who run these ponzi operations.
The RDAs do make pretty buildings, though. These are the pretty and shiny things that people like UTmorMAN take pride in, even though their taxes remain flat, their city services get cut back, and their "user fees" go through the roof.
People like UTmorMAN are usually decent and trusting. But they have a whole lot to learn about the brand of big city politics that's been practiced in Ogden lately.
Hey, I hate to play devil's advocate, but your post really made me think, Toad. You could make the argument that cities shouldn't have municipal golf courses, after all, they compete with private ones. And hey, is it Ogden's business to have a municipal cemetery that competes with private ones like Leavitt's Aultorest and Myers' Evergreen? And when did it become the obligation of government to provide library services? But I do agree though that unless an area is truly blighted, it's not a city's business to be spending so much time and money dealing with commercial real estate.
Hey Ozboy, you are right on with the cities that declare perfectly fine areas "blight." Such is the case here in Davis County, with my hometown being one of the biggest offenders.
I agree with "president" about wondering what the connection is between Owens' rock Mill and the problems in Ogden. I don't see the connection?
However, I think he is spreading more of the big guy on nine's lies about this other stuff. This administration can not demonstrate one single successfull project that they have done. Every one but 2nd street is a resounding failure.
If this IRS story is true, then why don't he give some details? That is the mayor's MO - claiming his losses as victories, taking credit for others successes, using vague unverifiable generalities to confuse the public into thinking he is somehow winning when in fact his whole administration is in a shambles and so is the city infastructure.
President appears to be one more of the mayors shills out selling snake oil. The Mayor "making" the federal government do his bidding is a particularly stupid joke.
Yo ho! Thank you, Ozboy! Will write more about this later, for sure!
Comments on ozboy's explanation of tax increments:
This is not good. The reason it is not good is that it takes the money which in normal circumstances would be fanning out into the community and confines it to a closed loop. And, as ozboy says, the community then has to pick up the slack. As ec says, no private citizen is able to do that, and it gives the city an unfair advantage in what should be a free market. In fact....
A private citizen managing to create an income generating entity with tax dollars going instead to pay the expenses of that entity, makes George Pullman come to mind.
Pullman was the inventor of the Pullman railroad car. If one were unlucky enough to work for Pullman, one most likely lived in a Pullman town, where all the houses were owned by Pullman. One shopped at Pullman stores, owned by Pullman, bowled at Pullman's bowling alley, etc. One could even get credit from Pullman at the store and run a tab. But then...
The economy took a nosedive, and so Pullman, to protect the company, cut salaries. He did not, however, reduce rents or cost of living in his town. Pretty soon, his workers owed him more than they were getting paid and could not get clear of their debts. An "I owe my soul to the company store" situation." It became intolerable, there were strikes and rioting, the Federal Government moved in, and the Pullman empire was dissolved, Pullman dying a broken man.
Interesting pages on Pullman here: http://www.chicagohs.org/history/pullman/pul5.html
Here is a quote from these Pullman pages:
"The Pullman model worked to some degree because the company maintained absolute control and ownership of everything in town, just as it did with Pullman cars and on-board services. But that monopoly became its greatest criticism: the model town built to handle the "labor problem" in a democratic America was run like an Old World aristocracy. Except for the post office, there were no city government offices present; a town agent managed Pullman and its activities. Pullman chose which stores could establish in his town, which books the library could offer, and which performances could appear in the theater. He assumed that his residents would be satisfied with one church and a form of worship chosen by Pullman himself: the Greenstone Church. Pullman did not allow residents to own their homes. Subsequently, some workers moved out of Pullman and bought residences in nearby communities such as Roseland and Gano.
Many Pullman residents resented the town's virtual prohibition of alcohol. The Florence Hotel housed the sole tavern, which only served the town's visitors-not the town's residents. Pullman's alcohol policy insulted his workers and made buying alcohol inconvenient: residents had to walk a short way to the next town for a pint in one of its many taverns. Pullman hired company spies or "spotters" to watch for and report any resident who behaved contrary to his policies. Upon first glance, George Pullman seemed to have provided ideal living conditions, but for those living in the town, he failed to provide even the most basic human rights. "
Does this sound somewhat familiar? The phrase "Old World Aristocracy," especially. And the failure to “provide even the most basic human rights” brings to mind the Ogden City water system and cuts in Ogden’s public services. Once an entity, whether it be Pullman, Microsoft, or Ogden City, assumes more than a certain proportion of available rights or property, it turns into a monopoly, and that is a feudal system, not a free market one.
To compare this with Ogden City's current situation regarding the mall (and other redevelopment projects,) first--we have heard that "Ogden City is landlocked." What this means is that land available for commercial development is at a premium. Therefore, the more the city owns, the less opportunity there is in Ogden for the private citizen.
Secondly, we have heard: "The City will own the building." What this means is that all those with businesses in that building will have to pay rent to Ogden City, and possibly maintenance fees, possibly into perpetuity, just as serfs on a feudal landlord's land had to pay rent and give a percentage of their crops for their entire lives, or as Pullman’s workers had to give a percentage of their pay back to Pullman in order to have food and housing. They could never move up---they could only move out.
We hear all the time that: "Our children are leaving Ogden."
Therefore, in order to make downtown development an attractive deal for investors, the City's tight control over what goes in and the City's ownership into perpetuity should probably be somewhat relaxed.
Suggestions as to how to do this:
(Contingent upon, of course, whether the mall site is free of contamination:)
1. Open it up to individual buyers and parcel it off, and write those contracts individually. Those who cannot afford to buy and develop the entire site might be able to handle a portion of it. It would widen the pool of possible buyers. This, I agree, is tricky, because someone might come in and put something hideous there which we would not want. So in this scenario, there should be perhaps a basic design concept, but purchasers conforming to the design will own their property, and this will all be in the contract.
2. Build it, let the city keep the land, but the business owners will have the option to rent to own the structures, or buy them outright. Sort of like a condo concept. Fees would be paid to the city for specific building and ground maintenance, which it would then have to provide, but a business owners could sell the property if they so chose. They would not simply be bleeding rent away. If the business failed, there would at least be equity in the building with which to pay debts and make a new start. This is one of the beauties of private ownership.
3. Continue along as they are, with the provision that after a certain period of time, the City will relinquish its hold to private investors. Sort of like what the UK did with Hong Kong.
What I am saying is that there has to be room for the private individual and/or groups in the private sector to move up and expand if they so choose.. There has to be, for people, a clear path to a better future here. The current strategy on the part of city administration to own commercial properties and collect rents into perpetuity raises the spectre of a dead-end, or a glass ceiling, for private enterprise. And private enterprise and property are absolutely necessary for the economic well-being of a city, and for this country, for that matter.
Dian, it is good, because all of your suggestins is what the city has already done or is doing.
President, CityVenture wantd A recreation center, a regular, run of the mill rec center where the common folk could afford to go play, etc and a resaonable price. What they didn't want, and what Godfrey tried to ram down their throat (and why they opted out of the mall) was what we have now, this grossly expensive, nucleus type recreation center, that the Gang of 6 claims is the second coming of the railroad.
Boyer Company seems to like it at this time, but have they signed any contract? Has Larry Miller? Until this thing (rec center) is in the can, which with the discovery of petroleum is making the investors take a hard look at things, not mention delays in voting, etc., nobody seems to be kicking in the City's door to sign up.
It's not so much the rec center itself, it's the way it's inception has been administered. How many 100K per year people are working on this thing and where are we at? The clocks ticking and meanwhile the city's infrastructure and other pertinent issues are being shoved to the back burners. And now, while the rec center, WalMart, and Union Square are all stalled and in financial straits, the Gang of 6 wants to spend another, what $150 million on the River Front project?
How about somebody spending some time on the infrastructure. They'll need water and sewage and roads for any of their projects to succeed, and the ability of our infrastructure to do that is waning.
Taking advice from Ozboy about Tax Increments, and RDA's is like asking a convict how to stay out of jail. If a convict told me how to stay out of jail I would not be offering suggestions to my buddies.
Union Square is not in financial straits my friend. It is doing very well. Before you flap know your facts.
Too good to be true. I've posted a couple of welcoming posts and given you a pat on the back for your change in demeanor, but here you go again with this "before you flap" nonsense.
The facts are that Union Square is stalled, due to a sub-contractors' bankruptcy, near foreclosure, and not selling much of anything, if anything at all.
It is you that should bone up on the facts and stop with the insults.
I hereby take back the niceties said about this guy. He still doesn't get it and there will be no response from me with his petty "flap" attitude. Give me someone who can discuss issues with intelligence and substance, instead of this tired old personal jousting BS that just smacks of ignorance and inability.
Your absolutely DEAD WRONG! The project is no more stalled than Malone and Stockton are coming back to the Jazz together. I have personally talked to the title company closing these transactions. There are closings happening every week. You can not even get a top unit or a store front they are all sold out. They have some townhouse styles in the back left, but that is it. So seriously know your facts before you FLAP! Try not to be a crybaby! Nobody likes them.
Now you're talking Mr. President.
I set up this site so intelligent people could argue local political issues back and forth.
One of the underlying assumptions of course, was that both sides would would show up on the WCF battlefield.
I've tried numerous times to get this somnabulent "socrates" person to start posting regularly. He isn't worth S**t on a regular basis, when he post every week or so.
Thanx for posting here, Mr. President.
Welcome back!
We're all hoping to hear more from you.
Details that you talk about would be really good too, BTW.
I agree that things seem to be better there than we all think. I talked to a shop owner a couple of Saturday's ago who said that he was under the impression that most of the spaces had been sold. We can all take note of the "for rent" signs instead of the "for sale" signs. To me, that means that they have already been purchased and are now the space is there to be rented by someone that wants to occupy the shop.
Of the 15 condos @ Union Square, listed on the WFRMLS, 12 show being Expired, 2 show being Sold and 1 shows being Under Contract.
Phase II has yet to begin and the bankruptcy is yet to be resolved.
Not exactly a booming real estate business, unless the condos are being sold privately and not across the MLS.
If Union Square were as shinney as some people think, I'd rather imagine that the Mayor would be blowing his horn about it for all to hear.
Seriously, know your facts before you FLAP. Ponder this statement Realtor. They are indeed being sold privately. I am not making this stuff up you cannot buy any of the 10-13 top units nor any of the 10 store fronts they have been sold(closed). Call for yourself. There were somewhere around 30-40 units. Typical Realtor goes to the MLS, and if they are not there then by damn it they must not have sold.
The new owner Mr. Allen escrowed the bk portion around 500K-600K, essentially it has been resolved, if he is not all that worried about it I don't know why all of you are. Where have you all been just because it is not negative anymore you don't follow the story.
Cool.
Did you buy one, pal?
president, if you knew 1/2 what Ozboy and EC know, you'd own your home instead of rent it.
Why doesn't some one settle this question of the Union square being sold out or not. Any one of you realty or lawyerly types could do a quick check at the county recorder to see if titles have been quit claimed over to new owners, eh?
It does seem strange that the units are all sold out and the lord mayor has not crowed! As much heat as he has taken over the whole sorry affair you would think if he could save some face he would.
Also it is just a little fantastic that the places sat for a couple of years with the best realty companies in Utah repping them and they didn't sell squat, then this rich ringer for the mayor comes in from left field and under the radar and sells them out in a couple of months - with no fanfare and no big time public marketing.
The city will be deep in the loss column until phase two is built and sold out, so until then it is a total financial failure for us poor tax paying stiffs.
Time will tell, but I was down there the other evening and it sure looked deader than a cat house in Provo on a Sunday morning. There was a lot of action at the biker bar, but the Mayors manor on the South side of the street was deserted. Maybe it's those bikers that are buying up all them choice condo's?
Now there's the rub, Ozboy: the responsibility for "settling" the Union Square question ought to reside with our local newspaper, but they've been silent for months. Also, this "rich ringer for the mayor" has the same last name, Allen, as the mayor's in-laws. Any connection?
LOCATION-LOCATION-LOCATION.
The Golden Rule (that and having EVERYTHING on paper) of real estate. Why would anyone want to live in a condo on lower 25th Street, at this time? Not a good family environment; your children can play on a sidewalk that is fenced in to keep the transients out. The place is so loaded with drunks that the City even "stole" the beer licenses away from a couple of store owners earlier this year or late last year (now they walk around the corner, buy their beer and bring it back to drink in the alleys and doorways. Yet the Mayor is questioning why nobody is buying the condos @ Union Square. What a shock. What a mystery.
Did a little research, with the County Recorder, on the ownership of the condos and guess what....BAM....another shock. Seems I was correct in yesterday's post. 2 are under private ownership; 10 are owned by the people who Stuart Reid dug up at the last minute before the project went into foreclosure, Union Square Associates.
So much for the president and his connections at the title company who are closing condos each week. Both Ozboy and EC thought right, in that the mayor would certainly be tooting his horm if all these alleged SALES had been Closing. Unfortunatley, for the taxpayers of Ogden, it ain't so.
So president, read your own words and commit them to memory....learn to walk before you talk, because talk is really all this blog gets from you. You can't fool us in that old sheep's skin.
Please email me on this Realtor on Deck.
I'm considering promoting this comment to the front page, but need a little additional info on your methodology.
Thanks.
I think you've got a mix-up here, realtor on deck. But first, let me say how much I really appreciate you researching this! We all want to know these things.
You have "Union Square Associates" as being the company formed at the last minute to buy condos. However, it is "25th Street Associates" that was mentioned as the buyer in a Standard Examiner article about one of the pending lawsuits on this project. "Union Square Associates" is a Proterra company, Proterra being the original developer.
Wrong Real estate broker. Your research must be outdated. You stupid moron.
Who would hire this realtor, anybody? Hes a joke.
It seems to me that the important aspect of this story, Dian, is that of the 12 residential condo units that show up in the public records as having been transferred, only two of them are actually "owned" by individuals who could be characterized as "arms-length" buyers. The other ten have been titled to an entity that is really a principal on the "seller" side.
We've been told by the administration and the media that these units have been moving on the open market. The obvious implication of ROD's rsearch is that they have not.
I'm still waiting to hear more from ROD by email for more details, but will definitely follow up on this, one way or another.
If ROD's information is accurate, it raises some possibly disturbing questions, I think.
It seems like there were around 14 of the 44 units sold before it went into bankruptcy and was "saved" by one of the brothers that Stuart Reid dug up at the waaarrrd.
Would the county records on these units be specific to the company or the addresses? Does anyone out there think the mayor ought to clear this up, after all he has $2 million of our money that will be lost if things don't go just exactly right with this project.
Regardless, there doen't seem to be any body moving in down there. It still is as dead as that house of ill repute that Ozboy referred to. Who are these phantom buyers that pony up the bucks for the condo's and don't move in? Why isn't the mayor bragging it up over all these sales? And yes, is this "Allen" saviour related to the mayor?, is this one more fishy deal from the city?
Lot's of questions from the streets, lots of silence from the ninth floor. Business as usual in Ogden these days.
They are not related, and the new purchaser was led to the project from one of his realtors Alan Steed.
As quickly as you jumped on this bull s--t wagon Mr. Charles I am going to disregard your posts from now on, I am sure a 13 year old is better clued in than you.
Rudi I can give you the name and company of the escrow agent closing everyone of these transactions. She has volunteered countless hours navigating between every single sub contractors attorney so they could start closing them immediately after the new purchaser bought them.
Rudi said:
"It seems to me that the important aspect of this story, Dian, is that of the 12 residential condo units that show up in the public records as having been transferred, only two of them are actually "owned" by individuals who could be characterized as "arms-length" buyers. The other ten have been titled to an entity that is really a principal on the "seller" side."
By the entity that is "really a principal on the 'seller'" side, I assume you are referring to Union Square Associates--is that correct?
If so, and if ROD did not make a slip of the typing keys, (which is what I thought had happened there,) this should indeed be interesting, because we have been told that the condo's were bought by 25th Street Associates.
Am really looking forward to reading more on this one!
I think that one of two things should happen here on this subject of the 25th street condo's. This matter should be clear to the public and the council before they vote on spending many many millions more on the Rec center which is designed to draw in more builders of condo's down town.
1. President should be cut off again for reverting to his anal and juvinile state, and some one with intelligence should come up with the true story free of administration spin.
2. Some one, Mr. President perhaps, should lay it out clean with no BS and tell us exactly who the buyers are and what their intentions are. It is our, the tax payers money, that is at serious risk here. We have a right to know.
If these units are really sold to independent buyers in arm length transactions for near their original asking prices then we will all owe the mayor an apology for doubting his wisdom and genius. I will be the first one to que up and kiss his skinny little ass in homage if he is right on this whole fiasco.
If your so worried about get off of your Fat A--, and go find out the buyers yourself.
Dian, you're correct to a point: nowhere on county record is the entity, "25th Street Associates." Several commercial and residential condos have been sold to "Buyers of Arm's Length." The rest were obtained by Union Square Associates via Quit Claim Deed on 17 May 02, which supports my premise.
The question remains as to why there's nothing recorded under the name of 25th Street Associates (I have not researched an Abstract of Title but as of TODAY at the County Recorder Office, Union Square is on record as the owner of 23 of the 45 available units in Phase I).
Douglas Charles, you are correct. There is a guy dug up by Reid who is in the process of taking over the show. His name is David Allen and he's the owner of 25th Street Associates,a with David Steed, a realtor and mortgage broker from Syracuse, being another member. Gabe Chadsey vice-president of a Murray marketing company named Mocha Management,on 24 May, 05 claimed about 1/2 of the 35 mixed use condos had either been Sold, are Under Contract, or have contracts Pending, which means some are still negotiating on terms and or price. Chadsey said then that the condos are being sold on a "word of mouth" marketing concept but a new marketing program with Open Houses is set to open soon (that was 3 months ago).
Why the County Recorder has the owner of record to be Union Square Associates is unknown. The possibility of a blanket loan (that covers more than one parcel in a development and then, as each individual parcel is sold, that parcel is transfered by deed under a "partial release") exists here, but since Utah is a Race to Record state, it's a mystery why the new owners of each unit not sold at arm's length are still showing Union Square Associates as the owner of record. Another mystery is, if all of these remaining units were sold, why the Closing Agent (the Title person) would not have recorded these newly sold parcels under the new owner's name, as recordation is done in-sinc with the disbursement of funds. One possibility is that maybe one entity bought them all, say 25th St. Associates, and nobody bothered to record the deal (quite risky considering Utah is a "Race to Record" state). Another possibility is that the Sub-contractors' bankruptcy filing stopped the Transfer of Deeds. And yet another possibility is that the Title Company wasn't on the ball and failed to record. Who knows? But I do know this, if I had just spent $4 million to buy this development, I'd sure as hell want my name under record at the County Recorder. If my Closing Agent had not properly recorded my transaction status, I'd fire the person.
The following statistics are on record and factual, according to the County Recorder:
22 sold at arms length-mostly Quit Claim Deeds;
23 owned by Union Square-Quit Claim Deeds
If these condos are "flying out the door," as some suggest, and their marketing concept is "word of mouth," then someone isn't doing his or her job. The Mayor would be thrilled and broadcast it all over the place (there are some highly placed City Officials who dispute this selling influx). Also, until Phase I is sold out, Phase II cannot begin, and Ogden City isn't making a whole lot of profit, if any, on this project.
WalMart went down in flames, Union Square, as stated, is stalled and in financial straits, there's oil on the mall sight that will cause further inspections, clean-up and lord knows what else under the ground, all signaling delays and expenses (how the city can pass the recreation center delay off on Moyes' pathetic lawsuit is beyond me, as it was so poorly briefed that a 1st year law student would have tossed it out before reading its entirety), and each day the infrastructure is rotting away under our feet with not much concern shown by the City Council. Seems to be alot of expensive dishes cooking away on the front burners, but as of yet nobody can stick a fork in any one of them and pronounce it "done."
And now the RDA wants to rush out and buy up 60 acres around the Ogden River (they couldn't put 22 acres together for WalMart-how are they going to put 3 times that many acres together for condos and mixed use) and kick-off another multi-million dollar project. Maybe they should focus on completing something, anything, before commiting the taxpayers to more of the same. It's obvious that when it comes to delopment, these people aren't pros, and development should be left to the pros, not a bunch of elected people that have maybe bought one or two houses in their lives.
One sad post-script: I direct this post to Dian and the other sensible people who can present good argument and or serious alternative of thought. People who simply rely on call well intentioned, descent people "stupid morons" need not read this or respond, for you come from a place of ignorance and I'm afraid you lack the capacity to present responsibile dialogue. Therefore, butt out!
To Realtor on deck:
Amen brother amen.
I am still a little unclear on exactly how many of the 44 units have been sold to legit "civilians" not associated with all the insiders?
Also under the bail out deal with this Allen guy it was my understanding that the city's entire two million dollar investment would be lost unless Phase 1 was sold out and then Phase 2 was built and sold out. This is our money my fellow citizens! I also believe that we deserve the truth on this situation, especially before the council and mayor launch off into another grand and expensive venture.
Is there any professionals in the real estate business that thinks that is a possibility in the foreseeable future?
One other interesting things of note is that on 5 Apr., 05, units 19 & 22 were sold to one Rebecca Jorgensen. The City Council's co-chair is named Jorgensen. I wonder, would this be his wife or just coincidence?
P.S.
Thought I'd also mention, as a realtor I have many websites, etc. at hand to check and verify my research. One of the biggest, RealQuest, confirms all of the County data I reported. Union Square is still the owner of record, as of the last recorded report date of July, 05.
now i know you have lost it you have fallen off of the deck and hit your head very hard.
As a Realtor you probably did not graduate from college either.
R.O.D. must stand for realtor on dope.
By your sentence structure, paranoid, it appears you didn't graduate from grade school. You should really try to stop embarassing your sorry-assed self.
Who are these idiots that have nothing to say besides meaningless, trash remarks?
And Mr. Charles, what a treat you're now in for....the president is going to disregard your posts from now on. Wish that he'd say that to all of us.
Michael Johnson, you should be ashamed. Not cute. Not nothing. I've read more meaningful stuff on the New York subway grafitti. Get a job, go to night school, come back when you can contribute something beside your illiteracy. No, on sceond thought, don't come back. Once is way more than enough.
Well Rudi, it is once again time to pull the plug on this obviously mentally deficient character that is cluttering up your other wise great site with his endless, silly and very amatuerish attempts at dialogue and humor.
Would also suggest to all sane participants that you do not take his bait by responding in kind to his jibberish. If Rudi doesn't have the cajones to keep this site half way smart, then maybe we can do it ourselves by not biting on this drivel. Ignore him, maybe he will throw a tantrum and not play anymore.
If you don't take some action soon I fear you will start to lose your intelligent participants. It does get a bit tedious and boring to have to wade through this shit to get to the ice cream.
Just say no!
ROD, thank you so much for spending the time to do all that research!
I said in one of my earlier posts that we had been told that the condos had been sold to 25th Street Associates in a Standard article about pending lawsuits. This statement was partially incorrect: it was not a Standard article, but a Salt Lake Tribune article to which I was mistakenly referring.
I attempted to access this article on the Trib's online archives so that I could supply a link, but either it is only available on the paid archives, (and it is certainly there, I just didn't access it,) or I was having problems with their archives. The link to the paid archived article is gigantic and probably would not post well. So if you would like to see that it is indeed there, go to the Salt Lake Tribune, go to archives, under "Paid Archives," type in "25th Street Developers" and the first few lines of it will come up, and you can decide whether or not to pay to see the whole thing.
I kept a copy of this article, however, and will quote bits of it here.
The following quotes are taken from an article in the Salt Lake Tribune published 6/23/05, entitled: "Ogden Gets In Another Fight With 25th Street Developers," written by Kristen Moulton.
The article begins:
"Ogden City is facing a second potential lawsuit over its handling of development along Historic 25th Street.
In a notice of claim this month, Union Square Associates accuses the city of methodically forcing it to default on its loan so the city's Redevelopment Agency would be able to reacquire the finished Union Square office, retail and 60-condominium project.
A lawsuit will be filed if the dispute is not resolved, said attorney Vincent Rampton of Salt Lake City. Utah's Governmental Immunity Act requires 60-day notices of claims before lawsuits are filed..."
CUT
"...Union Square claims the city, acting through Stuart Reid, director of community and economic development, and Scott Brown, the business development manager, engineered the default while negotiating with another developer to take over the property.
Union Square contends it was forced to sell to 25th Street Associates on the eve of a foreclosure sale or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. As a result, the company suffered $1.2 million in lost profits, $500,000 in unnecessary expenses and $300,000 in obligations to third parties, the letter says.
Among the specific accusations are that the city forced costly deviations
from project plans and interfered with sales of condominiums.
The city didn't deliver on promises of condo down-payment assistance and favorable financing for prospective buyers, and limited the company's marketing opportunities, Union Square's attorney alleges.
The city also failed to fund in full the tax increment financing that had been promised, causing a $125,000 shortfall, Rampton's letter says..."
There's more. I am sure you can see why I thought you were mistaken; I had read this and these quotes from Rampton's letter, and thought that there was no way Union Square would be alleging these things if the condos were still in its name.
Anyway, that is my source, and who knows---things might have changed in a major way between June 23rd, 2005, when that article was published, and now.
I myself have seen nothing else about this.
And now you are telling me that 25th Street Associates is nowhere on county record. Curiouser and curiouser!!
Sure appreciate your words, Dian, and yours also, Thomas Luke. I think the old avoidance scheme is best, until Rudi pulls the plug. Suddenly the irritation is back, coinciding with the president's return.
Myself and some others watched this foreclosure/bankruptcy deal come down in Council Chambers, with Reid parading David Allen and his bunch grandly across the floor. Not a word was mentioned on behalf of the subs, who had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. They were left twisting in the wind, their state of being of no concern, no different than that of the people around the WalMart site....to hell with our citizens, let's just get on with these projects. The subs were therefore forced to bankrupt, in order to stop the sham and hopefully get paid for their efforts. Prior to that infamous evening, the subs and Protera had attempted to restructure a situation gone bad, with both the Layton 1st Nat'l (I believe that's the proper name), and the City when suddenly Stuart Reid walked out of the proceedings and stopped the process. Apparently, he'd found David Allen and figured all was well. Guess he didn't count on the subs taking their action, which stopped the whole thing. And now, believe it or not, good old Stuart Reid is seeking a job in the private sector, waiting for 2 years to pass to take on the mayor, no doubt. One of the problems with a City becoming involved with private business: the individuals can just walk away when things don't work out. And he does his thing veiled in the cloak of the Church. Incredible.
When I first posted my thoughts, regarding this Union Square business, the basic research had already been done, as several of us have been involved from the start. It's interesting when somebody can only respond to facts with "moronic insults," but I guess that's the nature of the beast. Garbage in-garbage out, so to speak. It's obvious it's they who should maybe do a little research if they want to be credible. But enough of this....it's a waste and gains nobody anything.
It is an absolute pleasure to share some dialogue with you, Thomas, Ozboy, Utmorman, Kevin, Bonnie Lee, that crew from Centerville and others, people who are civil, may at times have opposing points of view but know how to present them with respect. Love a good argument and debate, presented factually and without the meaningless insults. This is blogging at its best and there's really no room for the other.
Appreciate your posts.
Also, watch for a more detailed report in the near future.
I'm leaving President's posts here in the interim, although I already believe he's violated the pact he made with me just a day or so ago.
I have no problem with ad hominens, so long as they're accompnied with facts.
Give us facts, Mr. President. Tell us how many Union Square RESIDENTAL condos have been sold to owner-occupants so far.
I think I could get carpal tunnel scrolling up and down on this thread alone. I like discussion and from both sides of the issue. We all need to think more, act more, and sit on our hands less.
Since several people seemed to be confused about my last post mentioning Mr. Owen's Rockmill... here is what I was saying.
I believe that individuals and corporations tend to put more care and better construction (of both thought and material) than any government entity. I have too many examples to post here on this already gigantic thread.
I will bring up one more example to illustrate my point. Does anyone remember the "avenues" in Salt Lake before they became "cool"? The avenues were not saved by massive city funding. Basically, the avenues were saved by people who saw potential. They saw opportunity. What was a "bad" or "blighted" area of town became a hip, trendy, and somewhat overhyped area of downtown. It took people seeing that opportunity and taking advantage of that opportunity to make that happen.
I hope that answers the confusion.
Centerville Citizen, I love play devil's advocate, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I think I hear what your saying about the golf courses, cemetaries, etc.
I did put in my post that parks should be included in the services that a city offers. In looking at recreational facilities, I would counter that it is just recently that cities and governments have undertaken this task. This is a trend that began with Roosevelt and Roosevelt. The first in setting aside our national parks, and the second involved in the New Deal and the WPA. Up to that point, philanthropic individuals, like Carnegie, set up library endowments and endowed most of our parks and museums. Most parks are still developed this way.
In looking at the national parks, I think the first Roosevelt had far-sighted vision in seeing a land booming with people and concerned about the preservation of 'open spaces' and natural resources. I call that good civic engineering/ planning... much like parks.
In the second Roosevelt administration, I would say that times were desperate. I have mixed feelings about this. The reason that times were tremendously difficult for most of the people in this nation was because of direct government intervention in the free market system. The government inadvertently caused the Great Depression by several actions it took, specifically with agriculture. It began the now infamous subsidized farmer's programs in the 1910's and 20's. This led directly to the collapse of the small independent farming and rise of corporate farming. For more information read "The Bones of Plenty" and historical pieces about that time.
Through empirical analysis of government attempts to "better" situations, I think one has to draw the conclusion that governments should not be involved in commercial enterprises. Even philanthropic attempts by the government have been disastrous. Look at the Welfare and Medicaid programs - both are set to leech trillions of dollars from the economy. The city of New York put ceilings on the rental rates and stifled development there for a decade.
With this in mind and after reading the posts today, I just think it is a bad idea for government to mess in the private sector and with market pressures. The RDA is attempting to do just that. Instead of the city relying on the resiliency of the citizens, it is instead attempting to change and profit from these developments.
I must say that cities undertaking large development projects with our tax dollars and then lining their coffers through those projects is stomach turning. We could have low taxes and subsequent growth in the commerce of this city, if the city would focus on doing its job. Water, roads, and services should be the mantra of the city. Instead it has been development, lawsuits, and losses.
$6 million to purchase the Mall
$5 million to settle the lawsuit with Woodbury
$2 million to Union Square to develop
$2 million possible pending lawsuit by Union Square
$19.5 million bond for the Rec Center (interest costs associated with this?)
$2.3 million delay costs for the Rec Center
$? for countless studies
$? for loss of business sales tax revenue for those business on Washington across from the Mall (less foot traffic - Cross Western Wear goes out of business)
$? for loss of businesses possibly looking to relocate on Washington
$? for audits related to BDO money misappropriated to the Mall project
$? federal lawsuit for the alleged stealing of architectural designs for the building at 25th and Lincoln
$? millions for the inevitable catch-up to our aging infrastructure... it just gets worse the longer you let it go.
Dosey Doe anyone? For every step the city takes in this direction, the costs keep mounting. Meanwhile, our services are cut, and the degredation to the infrastructure continues.
I just don't see how anyone can make the case for the city getting into commercial development. There are many other stories from other cities that would also illustrate this.
New comments are not allowed.