--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "oakdorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was in AP three times today.
>
> The Partners sign:
>
> "..At no cost to the taxpayers of Asbury Park..."
>
> True or False?
>
> TRUE: in the fact that the City did not fix the Casino or the
> Boardwalk or install the lights or roads OR......
>
> is it FALSE?
>
> Where is the line drawn?
>
> I can feel a few of you already typing.
>
You probably knew already that I would say this. It is how you define
COST.
If you define it simply, then it is TRUE - it is not being DIRECTLY
paid for by our tax money.
However, if you look at it in INDIRECT costs, or my daily baliwick,
OPPORTUNITY COSTS, then it is FALSE.
And I say this for some of these reasons.
The fact that infrastructure costs are paid by the master developer
means, in Partners case that it passes them along to subdevelopers.
That, along with their inherent greed and unreasonableness, has had
various effects.
1. By making the profit threshold that much higher for subdevelopers,
made many simply walk away and not do deals.
2. #1 above made the redevelopment proceed more slowly than it would
or should have. Deals would have been worked on while waiting for
CAFRA. That was 2004 (approval). My guess is that at least 5 condo
projects would have been completed and sold out before the market tanked.
3. Because Partners is not putting any of its money upfront (that
stopped a long time ago after the original purchases), money for
infrastructure is only available as te subdevelopers pay it to
Partners. Chicken and the Egg. No subdevelopers - no infrastructure.
4. In relation to #3, I ask - has the money for the complete cost of
the infrastructure been guaranteed by bond, letters of credit? No.
Just like everything else. I will not start the blame game. We are
where we are and the object is to progress from here.
5. And the lack of development in the form of "sold" condos and the
waterfront has resulted in few new ratables which we desparately need.
6. Partners has decreased the amount of ratables on the waterfront
through demolition, reducing revenues to the city.
7. Partners has continually challenged assessments on their properties
wich I calim are already too low resulting in reduced revenues to the
city.
8. Partners has been consistently been behind in paying what they are
supposed to pay including escrow payments for the Dispute resolution
Agreement.
I could go on but won't. So my answer to you is - it is FALSE. It is
being done at a very great cost to AP taxpayers. I say what I say not
out of ny inherent hate of Partners. They simply suck. Make no
mistake, not evn the governing body would miss them. We all wish they
would simply go away and let pros like MM and Metro take over.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
