Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
then go become a developer. since you can do things cheaper than they can you can competitively cut them out and rake it in.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, i guess if it falls within the jsq redevelopment area nd that area qualifies for 30 year abatements, i can't really object BUT perhaps the city should start scaling back abatements in jsq to 10 year

When the economy was soft, Kennedy Lofts, asked for a 15 year abatement, Healy gave them 12 years. Kennedy Lofts is the old Welfare building in Journal Square. The economy is great today and now we are granting them 30 years, 18 more years than under Healy. I don't buy this. Journal Square is prime property.

Developers take the risks and receive the rewards. This should not involve taxpayers subsidizing them. When they sell their property, usually 2 or 3 years later, the public does not receive the benefit because the abatement is transferred. Besides, who is bailing out the 2,300 people in lien for 2013? The answer is no one.

Developers build properties for their own benefit, not the benefit of a community. When development is isolated to one part of a city, only one part of the city benefits from development. The other part(s) get little to nothing and you have the tale of two cities continue to widen. Since government cannot force developers where to build it is limited to enticing them... Pilots reduce some varieties of risk so that the opportunity cost of developing in riskier markets is reduced, and the "love can be spread."


Markets are constantly changing, week to week, month to month, year to year, and certainly decade to decade. You cannot possibly believe that just because 1 developer (out of thousands) decided to build something 20 years ago that it means all, or even any, developers would be able to justify development in the same area today. Its just not rational to hold that belief.

There is nothing in the city charter saying regular taxpayers should subsidize development. In fact, when the law was originally passed, it targeted property no one wanted. These abatements went to downtown where developers were paying $5 and $10 million for the plot in the 1990s. Journal Square is prime property, the fact Kennedy Lofts got a 12 abatement when the market was soft shows 30 years are not necessary.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
then go become a developer. since you can do things cheaper than they can you can competitively cut them out and rake it in.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, i guess if it falls within the jsq redevelopment area nd that area qualifies for 30 year abatements, i can't really object BUT perhaps the city should start scaling back abatements in jsq to 10 year

When the economy was soft, Kennedy Lofts, asked for a 15 year abatement, Healy gave them 12 years. Kennedy Lofts is the old Welfare building in Journal Square. The economy is great today and now we are granting them 30 years, 18 more years than under Healy. I don't buy this. Journal Square is prime property.

Developers take the risks and receive the rewards. This should not involve taxpayers subsidizing them. When they sell their property, usually 2 or 3 years later, the public does not receive the benefit because the abatement is transferred. Besides, who is bailing out the 2,300 people in lien for 2013? The answer is no one.

Developers build properties for their own benefit, not the benefit of a community. When development is isolated to one part of a city, only one part of the city benefits from development. The other part(s) get little to nothing and you have the tale of two cities continue to widen. Since government cannot force developers where to build it is limited to enticing them... Pilots reduce some varieties of risk so that the opportunity cost of developing in riskier markets is reduced, and the "love can be spread."


Markets are constantly changing, week to week, month to month, year to year, and certainly decade to decade. You cannot possibly believe that just because 1 developer (out of thousands) decided to build something 20 years ago that it means all, or even any, developers would be able to justify development in the same area today. Its just not rational to hold that belief.

There is nothing in the city charter saying regular taxpayers should subsidize development. In fact, when the law was originally passed, it targeted property no one wanted. These abatements went to downtown where developers were paying $5 and $10 million for the plot in the 1990s. Journal Square is prime property, the fact Kennedy Lofts got a 12 abatement when the market was soft shows 30 years are not necessary.

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
then go become a developer. since you can do things cheaper than they can you can competitively cut them out and rake it in.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, i guess if it falls within the jsq redevelopment area nd that area qualifies for 30 year abatements, i can't really object BUT perhaps the city should start scaling back abatements in jsq to 10 year

When the economy was soft, Kennedy Lofts, asked for a 15 year abatement, Healy gave them 12 years. Kennedy Lofts is the old Welfare building in Journal Square. The economy is great today and now we are granting them 30 years, 18 more years than under Healy. I don't buy this. Journal Square is prime property.

Developers take the risks and receive the rewards. This should not involve taxpayers subsidizing them. When they sell their property, usually 2 or 3 years later, the public does not receive the benefit because the abatement is transferred. Besides, who is bailing out the 2,300 people in lien for 2013? The answer is no one.

Developers build properties for their own benefit, not the benefit of a community. When development is isolated to one part of a city, only one part of the city benefits from development. The other part(s) get little to nothing and you have the tale of two cities continue to widen. Since government cannot force developers where to build it is limited to enticing them... Pilots reduce some varieties of risk so that the opportunity cost of developing in riskier markets is reduced, and the "love can be spread."


Markets are constantly changing, week to week, month to month, year to year, and certainly decade to decade. You cannot possibly believe that just because 1 developer (out of thousands) decided to build something 20 years ago that it means all, or even any, developers would be able to justify development in the same area today. Its just not rational to hold that belief.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
then go become a developer. since you can do things cheaper than they can you can competitively cut them out and rake it in.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, i guess if it falls within the jsq redevelopment area nd that area qualifies for 30 year abatements, i can't really object BUT perhaps the city should start scaling back abatements in jsq to 10 year

When the economy was soft, Kennedy Lofts, asked for a 15 year abatement, Healy gave them 12 years. Kennedy Lofts is the old Welfare building in Journal Square. The economy is great today and now we are granting them 30 years, 18 more years than under Healy. I don't buy this. Journal Square is prime property.

Developers take the risks and receive the rewards. This should not involve taxpayers subsidizing them. When they sell their property, usually 2 or 3 years later, the public does not receive the benefit because the abatement is transferred. Besides, who is bailing out the 2,300 people in lien for 2013? The answer is no one.

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
then go become a developer. since you can do things cheaper than they can you can competitively cut them out and rake it in.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, i guess if it falls within the jsq redevelopment area nd that area qualifies for 30 year abatements, i can't really object BUT perhaps the city should start scaling back abatements in jsq to 10 year

When the economy was soft, Kennedy Lofts, asked for a 15 year abatement, Healy gave them 12 years. Kennedy Lofts is the old Welfare building in Journal Square. The economy is great today and now we are granting them 30 years, 18 more years than under Healy. I don't buy this. Journal Square is prime property.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, i guess if it falls within the jsq redevelopment area nd that area qualifies for 30 year abatements, i can't really object BUT perhaps the city should start scaling back abatements in jsq to 10 year

When the economy was soft, Kennedy Lofts, asked for a 15 year abatement, Healy gave them 12 years. Kennedy Lofts is the old Welfare building in Journal Square. The economy is great today and now we are granting them 30 years, 18 more years than under Healy. I don't buy this. Journal Square is prime property.

hero69 wrote:
well, i guess if it falls within the jsq redevelopment area nd that area qualifies for 30 year abatements, i can't really object BUT perhaps the city should start scaling back abatements in jsq to 10 year