Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance

Posted by bodhipooh on 2019/1/10 21:46:44

jerseymom wrote:

terrencemcd wrote:

JCGuys wrote:
One last thought - did the city give advance warning to the developer that they were failing to meet the conditions of the tax abatement? Was the developer given an opportunity for due process or an opportunity to correct deficiencies with the tax abatement while the building was under construction.

The tax abatement agreement says if the city warns of default, the developer has 30 days to fix the problem. There is the opportunity for a default.

The city issued the default on Oct. 23. 30 days later was Nov. 22.

The developer's lawyer last night claimed they didn't know until Dec. 17 about the potential revocation of the abatement, so he claims the 30-day period is still happening.

But wasn't construction completed already? Could the developer even have an ample opportunity to adequately address the default? I wonder if that will play into the legal argument. While I applaud the city's efforts to make sure that developers play by the rules, this does seem punitive. I wonder what other forces are at work here.

Therein lies my concern: I 100% support the city holding developers accountable to agreed upon terms and conditions, but enforcement has to be consistent across the board, and this action seems (on the surface) to be capricious, and perhaps even punitive. Many developers renege on deals and are simply slapped on the wrist, and sometimes even left off the hook with "after the fact", retroactive agreements or variances.

This seems very sudden and targeted. I’m not saying that the city is wrong (I don’t know all the facts or details) but I just hope they are indeed in the right because, given the recent track record, if the city loses this court case, it’ll simply end up costing us more money in the long run, and that is something that seems to happen all too often.

This Post was from: