JetBlue Direct Flight From Boston To Orlando

Coming To Worcester Soon????







Comments

Anonymous said…
The City has blamed the increased costs on COVID, the supply chain blah blah blah. They just pay and turn around and increase our taxes. That is the Worcester way.
David Z. said…
It’s not just an issue in Worcester or Polar Park as this article clearly points out.

The industry has been impacted by COVID, supply chain issues, and significant cost increases. But I guess articles like this doesn’t fit the narrative on this blog.

https://www.designbuild-network.com/comment/construction-industry-disruptions/
Anonymous said…
I doubt this project will end up in court but which party had a better lawyer will determine if the project pays for itself. I would assume that the WooSox had some kind of penalty in their lease with the City if the City did not have the ball park complete by the 2021 season since their lease with Pawtucket was over so the City had to get the stadium done, regardless of the cost. On the flip side I can't imagine any developer would guarantee constructing anything and accepting penalties if they didn't. Why would a developer speculate on building an office building if he did not have a tenant or a hotel without patrons or if the construction costs make it unprofitable so I doubt the City has any leverage there so the first comment is probably accurate that we are going to be paying for this.
Anonymous said…
Prior comment said :hy would a developer speculate on building an office building if he did not have a tenant or a hotel without patrons or if the construction costs make it unprofitable?"

Because the taxpayers funded it with TIFs, DIFs and free money. Its easy to accept more risk when its not your own money.
The rewards in the form of higher returns are not hared with city taxpayers, however. Only the risk is shared.

What a deal!
David Z. said…
And yet the left building is not being built until a tenant commits to the project.
Anonymous said…
No bank will lend money to a developer to build an office building without a tenant!
David Z. said…
I know that…I was stating that fact to the previous poster who made it seem they would build it with a TIF.
Anonymous said…
We agree.
The same condition, bank lending, would most likely apply to the hotel and the lab building. So the increased taxes and revenues on these three buildings are not there to pay for the ballpark. The first apartments are not even close to being done and I don't know when the second apartment building is proposed to be built, so they question I continue to ask is how is this project going to pay for itself never mind make a $10 million return. I will admit when this project was first announced because I read the news and I trusted that when the City hired an economist who was against these type of deals and he built a financial plan that showed the project paid for itself I thought that the City was doing its work correctly. Then when the project went overbudget twice and the work of the economist was questioned I became more skeptical that the project would pay for itself.
Although I never thought the City should be building a facility for a private business, more so for a private entertainment business who only employs seasonal part time jobs, I was ambivalent to the project because it was sold as breaking even. Now that I don't believe it will pay for itself I call for the City leaders to do anything they can to deliver on this promise because our City has so many needs that need to be funded with tax dollars that were not projected to be used to pay for the ball park.
Anonymous said…
One final comment. What raised a red flag on the project for me was back in December when the Worcester Business Journal reported the delays and downsizing of the proposed developments and questioned the project paying for itself the City's only response was it was negative reporting. They didn't refute the article with revised financials showing that the project still paid for itself. This put the final nail in the coffin of my skepticism.
Anonymous said…
Do you think the economist did a cost benefit analysis? If so do you think the City would share it?