$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.
Comments
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
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.
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.
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.