Must Read: Will the OPEB Ostriches Ever Run Out of Excuses?

Thank You: Great Comments on the LDA

 

 Similar to the question posed about the WooSox paying real estate taxes on the ball park, the same question should be made for Madison paying real estate taxes on the garage they are leasing for up to 99 years except in the LDA there is a section that excludes Madison from paying real estate taxes. 

Can the WRA, or the City (LDA signed by Augustus I assume because of the taxes) do this? 

How do I get a deal like this where the City builds me a ball park or a garage, leases it to me for what appears to be below market rent AND exempts it from paying taxes.
 

Someone smarter than me needs to really read thru this LDA and the leases because there is probably more than just this buried in them.

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 The LDA excludes Madison from paying real estate taxes on the garage being leased. How can the City exclude someone from paying taxes? The lease terms of $178,000.00 per year on a 340 space garage seems low as well.

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

Zero taxes! The ultimate TIF !

___________________________________________________________________________

 One last thought regarding the garage. Fletcher/Russo/Obrien spent millions of dollars to acquire property to support parking needs in the Canal District and pay taxes on the properties. The City builds a garage and will lease it to Madison who will not pay taxes Does this seem legal/logical or right?

____________________________________________________________________________

 

 To add insult to injury, and if my calculations are correct, Madison bought 15.11 acres from Wyman Gordon for $6,100,000 or $403,706.15 per acre. 

Fletcher/Russo/Obrien bought 2.73 acres for $2,970,000 or $1,087,912.00 per acre to ensure they had parking (they also could be a speculative land purchase) for the Canal District since the parking they had on the North side of Madison St (the vacant Madison lots) was going to have a ball park built on it. Now they are paying real estate taxes on their lots and Madison is not paying real estate taxes on the garage being leased. 

Again I ask is this logical/legal or equitable?

 

 

 





Comments

Anonymous said…
To add insult to injury, and if my calculations are correct, Madison bought 15.11 acres from Wyman Gordon for $6,100,000 or $403,706.15 per acre. Fletcher/Russo/Obrien bought 2.73 acres for $2,970,000 or $1,087,912.00 per acre to ensure they had parking (they also could be a speculative land purchase) for the Canal District since the parking they had on the North side of Madison St (the vacant Madison lots) was going to have a ball park built on it. Now they are paying real estate taxes on their lots and Madison is not paying real estate taxes on the garage being leased. Again I ask is this logical/legal or equitable?
Common Sense said…
The developer that revamped the old Worcester Center Galleria into the Worcester Common Fashion Outlets got a huge TIF and DIF for their project. We all know how that turned out. Also UNUM got a TIF for their tower That was supposed to be an anchor for the City Square project. They ended up vacating the whole tower. I think the City is trying to recoup some of that, but that's still 325 less feet on the street to patronize the nearby restaurant's and retail in the area.
Anonymous said…
A TIF for a start up makes some sense but excluding the WooSox and a parking garage, in an area with no parking, is not the same thing. Both buildings were built by the City and both are going to make a lot of money, use the same services as the rest of us so why aren't they paying taxes like the rest of us?
Anonymous said…
I just sent Matt Wally an email asking him why the WooSox do not pay taxes. I figured since he is no longer a City Councilor he may give an answer. I will report what he says.
Common Sense said…
Because the city manager and Joe Petty were so desperate to get this done good judgement went out the window. You've got to remember who we're dealing with. Neither of them have signed the front of a check. Ed's previous job was to supervise 3 people at some made up job at Holy Cross. Petty supposedly has a job in Boston that he never shows up for. You gotta think that if Mike O'Brien was still city manager the team wouldn't have received such a lopsided deal. Maybe that's why Winn Development is paying him $800,000 per year as Executive VP?
Common Sense said…
The smartest people in this whole fiasco could be the politicians in RI that had the courage to let the team walk rather than give in to their unreasonable demands.
Anonymous said…
Was it Mike O’Brien or Tom Hoover that walked away from the table on the proposed slot parlor on this very site because the deal was not good for the City?
Common Sense said…
I'm pretty sure it was O'Brien. The city council kind of ran Hoover out of town. He got the last laugh because he ended up getting a job at some smaller Midwestern city for twice what he was making in Worcester.
Anonymous said…
Between the comments on the LDA , the shrinking of the Cove apartments and the announcement that a company tried to by the WooSox there have been a lot of comments because information is coming out. Recently the project has been described as a fiasco or a house of cards. I do not now if it is either of these are accurate but I do know I have concerns the project will not pay for itself since I now understand the pro forma and read the LDA The check engine light has gone off in my head. I wish the City would just give us an update of where they think this project stands and it could be totally different than mine with the limited information I have.
Anonymous said…
With all the posts lately I have seen nothing on the parking issues in the Canal District which was the first issue which arose from the opening of the ball park. The parking garage will be open this year but I am not walking from there to go to the Banner and I am not paying $10 to park to go out to eat. I don’t think this is just me. I just finished reading an article in Mass Live about a 62 unit apartment complex on Water St opening with 25 parking spaces as well as a couple of new restaurants opening in the area.These projects are good for the City but will make the parking situation in the Canal District worse. I hope the City is making plans now for next season because it could be a repeat of last season.
Common Sense said…
Some urban planners will tell you that a lack of parking is the sign of a successful, vibrant city. The difference is Worcester has a very poor public transportation system. The WRTA is a joke. If you've got 150 people leaving bars after last call in the Canal District are there going to be enough Ubers or cabs to accommodate that? It's not like Boston that you can take some stairs down to the subway station and be anywhere in the City in 15-20 minutes.

Shrewsbury Street is notorious for a lack of parking, but it still thrives (the valet helps). I'd like to see some data from restaurant and bars owners that they are losing business due to a lack of parking. I suspect it's not as big of a problem as you say.
Anonymous said…
Maybe some solutions to the parking's issues. Why not put a garage over the library parking lot? This has been talked about for years, but the Library Board of Trustees always shoots it down. It could offer cheaper parking than the lots and garage around the stadium, freeing up parking that could be available to patrons visiting the businesses in the Canal District.