Skip to main content

View Diary: Hoboken: Why only three blocks were to be destroyed. (55 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  New residents don't spend? (0+ / 0-)

    No contribution to taxes until the 7- year abatement ends? No increased value on surrounding properties?

    Possible, but seems unlikely.

    I'm willing to believe that the developer got a good deal, especially if there was no competitive selection process.

    But "runaway development" doesn't seem like the right description for brownfield replacement.

    And people have to live somewhere, so developers have to build somewhere.

    Cities have to plan where and how to do growth, and how to finance it, and then carry out the plan. Too many places try to prevent all development, which does not work out well.

    "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof.” ― John Kenneth Galbraith

    by Urban Owl on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 11:27:10 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  New residents are tenants not owners (0+ / 0-)

      Sure they spend and pay sales taxes but it's not all that certain they'll be spending in the city anyway.  It's not even all that certain they'll be earning an income in CT since Danbury is near the NY line.  So the city will get some taxes from their cars.  Big fucking deal.  

      The developer got a sweetheart deal.  The landowner who is selling the land to the developer is connected to the mayor so it's to his benefit to sell the land.  They both made out.  There's no ifs and or butts about it.  It's prime real estate once it's cleaned up.  There was no need to give away a 7 year tax abatement on the completed project (which will be 10 years since construction will take about 24-30 months after approval) in addition to everything else.  

      Also it's obvious you're not familiar with the city or the specific situation.  This city has seen runaway development in the last 10 years as we've added over 15%-20% more housing units in a city of 80,000+ which since 2000 has grown by about 10%-12% (from 70,000+ in 2000).  Do the math and you will quickly see that the supply is seriously outpacing the demand.  Runaway development is a very apt description.

      Huge developments of once virgin lands have become the norm.  Sweetheart deals to preferred developers have become the norm.  Violation of building and zoning codes by council members and people with ties to the mayor have become the norm.  There is a smart way to grow and develop land and there is a dumb way.  Giving tax breaks to develop prime real estate is dumb.  Approving 6,000 new housing units on pristine virgin land is not a smart plan, especially when it's in a remote part of town and has no infrastructure.  

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 03:06:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Totally agree on that last (0+ / 0-)

        Allowing sprawl is almost always a bad deal for taxpayers. I'll take your word for it that the deal on the brownfield could have happened without the tax break.

        But 375 units built be a good developer, creating a $70 m project that will continue to pay the base tax seems like a decent deal. (Greystar is generally good, both at building and at  managing.)

        Since most of the units are 1-BR, it is unlikely that there will be many children living there, so impact on schools is limited.

        Adding residents to Downtowns that are trying to revitalize with a Main Street program is generally a good strategy. It is certainly less likely to be a bad idea than building single-family homes on greenfields!

        I deal with redevelopments, brownfields, tax deals, etc. as part of my job. I am NOT a developer, I am a government planner trying to make better urban places happen.

        Didn't mean to get into the weeds, just could not resist, sorry!

        "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof.” ― John Kenneth Galbraith

        by Urban Owl on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 07:18:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site