Butchcjg wrote:
I'm confused about the tax abatement issue...I have one quick question:

When an abatement is issued, does that mean the people buying the individual condo units also have tax abatements for 20 years? Or, does it just mean the development itself doesn't pay taxes?

And, I agree with what others have said here...Newport definitely doesn't seem worthy of tax-abatements any longer. It's not in need of development, but plenty of other areas in the city are.

Minnie wrote:

[snip]

so many residents
participated, and went home with aching backs. I was in the park every day, watering, and I know the impact they had on people, even if they?re not perfect and have a temporary fence because that?s all we could afford.

[snip]
the joy we felt the day we broke ground. For I know in my heart, that it was this day, that caused those same
angry members to realize that gardens in Hamilton Park are not so bad afterall, and are really quite popular.

DanL wrote:
No question, this the redevelopment plan proposed for St. Francis Hosptial will completelly change the character and use of the area and park while not providing any rational why.
[snip]
Hopefully, City Planning will finally provide some rationale for this massive upzoning of a historic residential district.

Maybe even explain why they are proposing high-rise buildings 50% taller than the tallest building being built in the brand new Liberty Harbor North neighborhood off Grand St.

Minnie wrote:
Quote:

LoraJ wrote:

Being #18 on the Agenda, wonder what time that will be?

Hmmm.. you might want to bring your knitting project.

jc_insomniac wrote:
Why does it feel like we just got bamboozled by a couple of realtors? Hmmmm?

I would be much more in favor of a system that penalizes the building for empty spots. That would force the building to lower monthly prices until the spots are filled or open the spots to outside residents (or both). Unless the developer/building management faces a penalty, there is no reason they shouldn't raise their prices and capitalize off their new found monopoly.

super_furry wrote:
Quote:

medfever555 wrote:
you all got what you deserved; once the lawyers got involved the party was over.

Were the lawyers that medfever555 referred to the two HPNA board members (lawyers) that craftily changed the bylaws to protect HPNA from the alleged ?carpet baggers?? Regardless of what he/she meant, at the last HPNA meeting on 12/7/05 there were 15 eligible voters present at mid meeting. HPNA total membership is about 45, and half to a third of those members (includes the HPNA trustees and officers) actually participate during the year, so 15 or 20 people ARE the HPNA. There are over a thousand people in the HP neighborhood eligible to join the association. Since the bylaws were changed they (the HPNA which for all practical purposes is the board) have the ability to put into office whomever they choose. Don?t expect people with independent views to be elected to trustee position, and certainly not to officer positions.