Fiscal 2023 DIF Account


 $3,000,000 profit???

Have we provided enough "proof"????   


Old comment from Wormtown

Seems like you cherry picked certain parts of the article and left out the sale of an adjacent property for $3 million to offset any shortfalls in year 1.


wormtown said…
Last post from me. This blog is depressing and reminds me of the old Worcester. The Worcester that doesn’t understand we live in a city, not a suburb. The city that can’t walk more than one block to get to its destination and God forbid, have to pay anything to park. The city that had a vocal contingent against building the Centrum. The city that tore down it’s core downtown, cut off the East and West side from each other, and built a mall that did not blend in with downtown. The city that believes we don’t need a theater or a AAA baseball team or an airport because those things are available one hour outside of Worcester. The city with the naysayers that said the Hanover Theatre would never succeed, and if it did succeed, well of course that means Mechanics Hall will go out of business. The city that says of course the Bravehearts will go out of business if the Worcester Red Sox come, because we can’t have two good things at once in Worcester. The city who’s residents will drive to Boston, pay $50 to park and walk 1 mile to their destination, but demands free parking right in front of the DCU Center or Polar Park. I don’t have all the answers in regards to financing the ballpark and neither do you. I’m at least willing to have an open mind and come to a conclusion. And I don’t care what you say, but development on the scale that is happening would not have happened organically. Sorry, we’ll have to disagree. But hey, keep lamenting how we should have either a casino or an Amazon warehouse or just a parking lot at the current sit of Polar Park. So, keep complaining about parking, pushing for more warehouses across the city and how horrible it is that attendance is way up at Polar Park. Bottom line, you use this blog to complain about Worcester and you want others to join in your misery. Enjoy each others misery. Cheers
Bill Randell said…

You asserted $3,000,000 profit in the sale of these parcels. Obviously you realize that you are wrong now and want to change the subject.

Have a nice day

Anonymous said…
I wish we all could have a substantive conversation/debate about an issue without kicking sand in someone's face.
Generally I agree with this blog's postings asking questions or providing a contrary opinion if it is based on something. This and other blogs has become the new public square and we collectively need to protect this new venue.
That being said, we (collectively) need to hold our elected and appointed officials accountable for their actions and statements, again sometimes in this new public square called a blog. As it relates to Polar Park, one person's opinion is this blog has questioned the accuracy of estimates presented (although not for some time) or statements made and generally the blog has been accurate. The current issue is a statement that was made, and repeated, that the properties sold for the Cove cost $10. I for one never saw the original statement in the Worcester Business Journal and after i saw the post of the article and saw this was Mr Bafaro's property I immediately knew that statement had to be totally wrong. Mr Bafaro did not become as sucessful as he did by selling property for $10 only to have the new buyer flip it for $3 million.
With regards to the investment of $175 million, or whatever the final cost and whatever the City's portion of the final cost is, if it pays for itself I do not have a problem with the ball park. If it costs me or diverts money from what I expect from my tax dollars, streets I can drive on without blowing a tire, a new Burncoat High, public safety etc, I will emphatically state that i will be adamently be against the ball park PERIOD. That is my opinion and I am entitled to it.
In closing, I will say commenters need to give more thought to responses not just the same old same old "you're negative". because anyone can say that punch line.
Use some of the gray matter you have been blessed with and have a healthy debate or conversation.
Anonymous said…
Wormtown, this city can have excellent amenities and the people who complain about not being able to park inside a restaurant on their table (kidding, sort of) don’t typically go out and spend money anyway.

The question being raised is what is the cost-benefit analysis of the ballpark and why is it shrouded in mystery and being a good leaving alone by the city council? I think that we need a recall election. Many in the current council simply want to virtue siganal, the sure hallmark of someone who engages in no actual virtuous acts. Knee jerk tax increases and chasing businesses out of the city should disqualify someone from “serving” on the council. It is service and that requires that duties get performed.
Anonymous said…
Until recently the City Council abdicated their authority to Augustus when it came to the ballpark and from my perspective it wasn't until the purchase of a drone, which I disagree with the City Council to an extent, has the City Council fulfilled its responsibilities in questioning the City administration. In relative terms the drone purchase financially pales in comparison to spending $175million (?) to build a ballpark FOR a private company, WooSox and yet the City Council has debated this expense exponentially longer than the the ballpark. I hope that the City Council continues to question the City Administration going forward.
With regards to a cost benefit analysis, the City did not do one. The City was intent on building a ballpark for the WooSox, who are probably making more money than they projected (which I don't begrudge them for because that is their business), with the expectation of breaking even. The City should have conducted a financial risk assessment, which I doubt they did.
Finally, with regards to parking, the City should have done more than identify the number of parking spaces within a certain radius of the ballpark. The should have analyzed what the effect of monopolizing parking on game days on the existing residents and businesses in the Canal District. I recently heard Candy Carlson question some new concerns about parking related issues with the commuter rail. Vehicles and parking at this moment time are imperative to residents and business because we rely on vehicle to get us to and from work as well as to and from things like restaraunts. This blog and commenters are only asking the questions that should have been asked 4 years ago and were not, with the exception of a few articles from the Worcester Business Journal.