Only In Buffalo

[Linda_D]

Originally Posted by keyboard150

Therefore, the eyesore and the tax-breaks continue.

An "eyesore" in good repair beats an empty field. In order for the "eyesore" to go away, it would have to come down, and since there are no proposals to put something else there, it would be an empty field.

As for tax breaks, the current tenants are renters who don't receive any tax breaks. The building and land are owned by the city. The city doesn't tax itself.

If you think that selling the MDA complex off to some private developer is going to end tax breaks, think again. There will probably be some kind of tax break/subsidy done even if it were to go condo. No big project in downtown gets done without the developers, and sometimes the future owners, getting huge tax breaks and/or subsidies.

The next time you get your tax bill, be happy knowing that former DA Frank Clark's tax bill probably isn't a whole lot more than yours, although he lives in a brand new half-million dollar townhouse on the waterfront while you live in a double in South Buffalo. I think you should worry far more about the inherent unfairness of that than that 1,000-1,500 middle income people are getting cheap rent in some downtown apartments.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Originally Posted by Linda_D

An "eyesore" in good repair beats an empty field. In order for the "eyesore" to go away, it would have to come down, and since there are no proposals to put something else there, it would be an empty field.

As others have mentioned, the "eyesore" could be improved upon if/when it is converted.

It would cost money, but it would not be too difficult, to cut larger windows into the buildings exterior.

People have mentioned simply upgrading the exterior of the building and the interior instead of a complete demo. At least for the time being.

Originally Posted by Linda_D

As for tax breaks, the current tenants are renters who don't receive any tax breaks. The building and land are owned by the city. The city doesn't tax itself.

While they may not pay taxes, the renting in a complex, regardless of the owner, that does not pay taxes, they are getting a "break" so to speak.

Originally Posted by Linda_D

If you think that selling the MDA complex off to some private developer is going to end tax breaks, think again. There will probably be some kind of tax break/subsidy done even if it were to go condo. No big project in downtown gets done without the developers, and sometimes the future owners, getting huge tax breaks and/or subsidies.

I am pretty sure the complex is inside of the Emprie Zone, so you are correct that the developer would get break. But even with the breaks, the property would be paying taxes. Something it is not doing today.

Originally Posted by Linda_D

The next time you get your tax bill, be happy knowing that former DA Frank Clark's tax bill probably isn't a whole lot more than yours, although he lives in a brand new half-million dollar townhouse on the waterfront while you live in a double in South Buffalo. I think you should worry far more about the inherent unfairness of that than that 1,000-1,500 middle income people are getting cheap rent in some downtown apartments.

Why can't people be upset about both. Why do people like you move the target?

After all, how can you feel sorry for middle income people who kicked out poor Blacks back in the 60s. Didn't they do the SAME EXACT THING?

[Linda_D]

Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS

As others have mentioned, the "eyesore" could be improved upon if/when it is converted.

It would cost money, but it would not be too difficult, to cut larger windows into the buildings exterior.

People have mentioned simply upgrading the exterior of the building and the interior instead of a complete demo. At least for the time being.

The "complaint" about the buildings being "eyesores" is their design. They are what they are: utilitarian boxes. As for cutting larger windows into the building, that may or may not be possible. The same with the water tanks on the roofs.

Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS

While they may not pay taxes, the renting in a complex, regardless of the owner, that does not pay taxes, they are getting a "break" so to speak.


I am pretty sure the complex is inside of the Emprie Zone, so you are correct that the developer would get break. But even with the breaks, the property would be paying taxes. Something it is not doing today.

So what??? The city hasn't collected taxes from that property for probably close to 60 years, so why displace hundreds of residents for a piddling amount of tax money when the costs of relocating these residents will probably cost the city far more than it will recoup from taxes in ten years? It's not like anybody has an economically viable alternative to tax- payer subsidized development of the parcel anyways.

Moreover, why should the waterfront be reserved only for the rich? Diversity has a value that can't be measured only in dollars and cents, and it doesn't only mean racial/ethnic diversity. It also means economic diversity, and the MDA complex is just about the only place downtown where moderate income people can afford to live.

Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS

Why can't people be upset about both. Why do people like you move the target?

After all, how can you feel sorry for middle income people who kicked out poor Blacks back in the 60s. Didn't they do the SAME EXACT THING?

Actually poor blacks were not moved out of the Dante Place projects in the 1960s. The project was built in the early 1950s. At that time, I believe most of the tenants were white, although there were probably some blacks. Crime and maintenance were problems from the start. Conditions worsened when the city moved blacks displaced from the soon-to-be bull-dozed Ellicott District into the complex. Many tenants voluntarily moved out in the mid 1950s because of the problems in the apartments, and eventually all the low-income tenants were moved to other housing projects. It was after that that the complex was converted to middle income housing, so it was NOT the same exact thing. Moreover, two wrongs don't make a right.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Originally Posted by Linda_D

The "complaint" about the buildings being "eyesores" is their design. They are what they are: utilitarian boxes. As for cutting larger windows into the building, that may or may not be possible. The same with the water tanks on the roofs.

Design is subjective. While they are ugly, they can be improved. At the end of the day, the value is not on the outside looking in but the inside looking out. The value mainly in the location and the view. New windows would help.

Originally Posted by Linda_D

So what??? The city hasn't collected taxes from that property for probably close to 60 years, so why displace hundreds of residents for a piddling amount of tax money when the costs of relocating these residents will probably cost the city far more than it will recoup from taxes in ten years? It's not like anybody has an economically viable alternative to tax- payer subsidized development of the parcel anyways.

Because of 60 years the location has sucked. Now that Canal Side is being built, at a cost of $300+ Millions, the location has much more value today.

As for you calling the tax revenue "a piddling amount", that is just ignorant. Everything helps for a city that is BROKE.

The COB needs to do everything it can to maximize whatever opportunity presents itself.

Originally Posted by Linda_D

Moreover, why should the waterfront be reserved only for the rich? Diversity has a value that can't be measured only in dollars and cents, and it doesn't only mean racial/ethnic diversity. It also means economic diversity, and the MDA complex is just about the only place downtown where moderate income people can afford to live.

Just where does it say that everyone should get equal? This comment alone shows just how useless a conversation with you is.

Added to this, just like you calling the taxes a piddling amount, NOBODY is saying that this should be reserved for the rich. Time and time again you inject things into your argument that were not mentioned to try and make your argument stronger. All it really does is make your argument weaker.

There are people in that complex who could afford to BUY a home in SEVERAL nice areas of Buffalo. Because they are connected, they take advantage of the taxpayer and lived in subsidized housing. AND you want me and others to feel sorry for them? ROTFLMAO.

Originally Posted by Linda_D

Actually poor blacks were not moved out of the Dante Place projects in the 1960s. The project was built in the early 1950s. At that time, I believe most of the tenants were white, although there were probably some blacks. Crime and maintenance were problems from the start. Conditions worsened when the city moved blacks displaced from the soon-to-be bull-dozed Ellicott District into the complex. Many tenants voluntarily moved out in the mid 1950s because of the problems in the apartments, and eventually all the low-income tenants were moved to other housing projects. It was after that that the complex was converted to middle income housing, so it was NOT the same exact thing. Moreover, two wrongs don't make a right.

In 1959, 68% of the complex was black. When the project was built, in 1952, it was mostly white because of the Italian neighborhood that it replaced. However, by 1959, the complex was primarily black because of the movement of blacks from the Ellicott district what that was torn down. We read the same book!

It is the same thing. Only you think it is wrong for land to evolve. So your comment about two wrongs don't make a right is only an opinion.

[CSense]

Originally Posted by Linda_D

So what??? The city hasn't collected taxes from that property for probably close to 60 years, so why displace hundreds of residents for a piddling amount of tax money when the costs of relocating these residents will probably cost the city far more than it will recoup from taxes in ten years? It's not like anybody has an economically viable alternative to tax- payer subsidized development of the parcel anyways.

You've mentioned it a hundred times on this board, the city needs to increase it's tax base, so what's the problem now?

If you owned an apartment complex and sold it to a developer who decided to make them into condos, would you be required to pay you tenants for relocation? No. So why should/would government?

What cost of relocation? They are renters, they own nothing but there personal possessions. As long as no federal dollars are spent to sell, improve or acquire the site, the city only has to pay for the cab fare. For those on public assistance, there are numerous under occupied locations throughout the city. Also, they can seek vouchers.

If the city were ever to sell the property, there could be an agreement that allows those to have up to one year to relocate. The agreement could hold that no taxxes would be collected for that one year.

You keep making bogus arguments but none hold any water.

I can see you point of view that you'd like to see middle income people have the ability to purchase and live on the waterfront but but that's more of an unrealistic and idealistic desire for a poor city. It can ill afford to let valuable property sit untaxed.

[WNYresident]

Why not increase the tax base from the current open land now? Are the apartments directly in the way of a project waiting to proceed?

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Originally Posted by CSense

You've mentioned it a hundred times on this board, the city needs to increase it's tax base, so what's the problem now?

If you owned an apartment complex and sold it to a developer who decided to make them into condos, would you be required to pay you tenants for relocation? No. So why should/would government?

What cost of relocation? They are renters, they own nothing but there personal possessions. As long as no federal dollars are spent to sell, improve or acquire the site, the city only has to pay for the cab fare. For those on public assistance, there are numerous under occupied locations throughout the city. Also, they can seek vouchers.

If the city were ever to sell the property, there could be an agreement that allows those to have up to one year to relocate. The agreement could hold that no taxxes would be collected for that one year.

You keep making bogus arguments but none hold any water.

I can see you point of view that you'd like to see middle income people have the ability to purchase and live on the waterfront but but that's more of an unrealistic and idealistic desire for a poor city. It can ill afford to let valuable property sit untaxed.

Another thing to consider is we are talking about MIDDLE INCOME people. Not the poor. Some of these residents work for the city and make a nice living. Some of these people make north of $50-$75K and we should feel sorry for them. SERIOUSLY W.T.F?

The median home price is under $60 for Christ Sake. You can find nice housing for under $90k. Why the hell is the COB providing subsidized housing for middle income folks when it is so cheap to live there.

I will tell you why. This program was created for NYC because it is harder to live in NYC on a middle income. But in order to get it passed, you had to make it available for all of NYS.

So back when Marine Drive was created, the city went after "FREE MONEY" to provide housing at a super discount for FREE CHEESERS.


Seriously....if people do not see the problem with the mindset of feeling bad for MIDDLE INCOME folks living in SUBSIDIZED apartments in Buffalo of all places....WNY is screwed.

[Save Us]

the above illustration is reason #115 why it is screwed.

[CSense]

Originally Posted by WNYresident

Why not increase the tax base from the current open land now?

Most of the "open" land is considered brownfield. It takes alot of public money to remediate and prepare the land ready for development. Where does that money come from? You'll need tax exmptions and outright grants to lure in businesses into NYS let alone Buffalo, so it becomes a vicious cycle.

This is a no brainer. This is an asset the city needs to capitalize on, which would cost the city nothing and have everything to gain.

Again, I have no opposition in making into middle income condos, with units going for $85,00 to $125,000, just get the effing thing on the tax rolls.

[Linda_D]

Originally Posted by WNYresident

Why not increase the tax base from the current open land now? Are the apartments directly in the way of a project waiting to proceed?

There is "no project waiting to proceed". There is a group of tenants who think they want to convert the apartments to condos -- if they can get the right deal (ie, buying their apartments for very little). As far as I know, they haven't made a concrete proposal. There is no developer chomping at the bit to grab the complex or the land, either, even though it would probably come with Empire Zone tax breaks like the one given to the latest Erie Basin townhouses/condos.

[Linda_D]

Originally Posted by CSense

Most of the "open" land is considered brownfield. It takes alot of public money to remediate and prepare the land ready for development. Where does that money come from? You'll need tax exmptions and outright grants to lure in businesses into NYS let alone Buffalo, so it becomes a vicious cycle.

This is a no brainer. This is an asset the city needs to capitalize on, which would cost the city nothing and have everything to gain.

Again, I have no opposition in making into middle income condos, with units going for $85,00 to $125,000, just get the effing thing on the tax rolls.

When does the city actually start "capitalizing" on this asset???? Twenty years down the road? Fifty?

• The city spends tens of millions on remediation of brownfields.
• The city spends tens of millions more on infrastructure.
• Developers buy the land for what the city has into it, "develop it", collect their subsidies and tax breaks, and then sell the houses/apartments on it for $500,000 and up.
• The city then gives huge tax breaks to the connected home owners for ten years that yield the taxes equivalent to $50,000-75,000 houses.
• When those ten years are up, the friendly guys in the assessor's office decide that the homes have actually depreciated and lower the assessments significantly.

That's how it really works with Buffalo's "residential redevelopment" projects. Buffalo even pretends these are "businesses" to Empire Zone tax breaks. How many new jobs have the various Erie Basin housing projects produced?

Buffalo's track record for largesse to businesses is even worse. For the Bass Pro project, the city and county have essentially foregone property taxes and pledged their share of sales tax revenue to cover bonds for infrastructure.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Originally Posted by Linda_D

There is "no project waiting to proceed". There is a group of tenants who think they want to convert the apartments to condos -- if they can get the right deal (ie, buying their apartments for very little). As far as I know, they haven't made a concrete proposal. There is no developer chomping at the bit to grab the complex or the land, either, even though it would probably come with Empire Zone tax breaks like the one given to the latest Erie Basin townhouses/condos.

Linda...

Do you read what other write? The reason why there are no developers going public is because the complex is not on the market. Kinda hard to put in an offer on something that is not for sale.

Just to note, in the Business First post in 2004 that I linked above.

Queensland is one of several parties that has expressed an interest in purchasing the apartments, but BMHA has yet to decide if -- or when -- it will ever sell the units.

IIRC a poster on BRO, who is a commercial RE broker, said there were a couple of people looking at the project as well.


Put the complex on the market for $30M. See what happens. That values each unit at $50,000 on avg.

You could also gauge interest on the complex as a condo conversion to the public. Go as far as taking deposits like developers do. Selling each unit, one at a time, at $75,000 would net $45M. Hardly chump change.

NONE OF THESE THINGS require kicking people out....yet. If the right price comes in...sell the place. If not...keep it as is and try again in 5 years.

[kernwatch]

I have concluded that it is virtually impossible to carry on informed discussion of any topic which "Linda D" chooses to dominate.

She has made 27 posts on this topic about Marine Drive Apartments . . . once again she has inserted good information with a maddening mix of utter fiction.

The 100 or so tenants who wanted to privatize the complex were very well organized & worked with respected attorney George Grasser & an expert consultant (name?) who accomplished such transitions of housing to tenant ownership in other cities. And they had a professionally-designed, highly informative "Queenslanding" website, now removed.

They were met by political resistance at every turn, like so much in Bflo, & finally gave up after several years.

"Linda D" has decided from the comfort of Chautauqua County that Bflo should forever subsidize middle income folks to live on the waterfront . . . in the third poorest US city.

"Linda D" wins, I give up.

COPY: from June 2005

http://www.speakupwny.com/forums/sho...queens+landing

June 2nd, 2005, 02:42 PM #1
steven
moderator

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Side!
Posts: 8,392

Marine Drive tenants press campaign for private condominiums


Transforming a public housing complex on the downtown waterfront into private condominiums would be a "win-win" scenario for everyone, according to some tenants of Marine Drive Apartments who stepped up lobbying efforts Wednesday.
Advocates insist the conversion would generate tax revenue for the city, help its cash-starved public housing agency and guarantee all existing residents that they could stay without incurring additional costs.

"We know this works for everyone," said attorney George Grasser, who is working with the Queens Landing Tenant Action Group.

More than 100 residents belong to the coalition, about a fifth of Marine Drive's population.

But a Masiello administration spokesman reiterated that the complex is not currently for sale and that talk of converting the 616 units into condos is premature.

Consultants presented a plan to the Common Council's Community Development Committee that features:

A mixed-use development that would include retail and possibly offices in underutilized space.

New facilities to accommodate community events and tenant activities.

A three- or four-level parking ramp that would be used by tenants but would also be marketed to Bass Pro Shops, which plans to open a superstore in the adjacent Memorial Auditorium. Revenue could be used to help assist lower-income residents to purchase their Marine Drive units.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial...02/1046987.asp

[WNYresident]

Bflo should forever subsidize middle income folks to live on the waterfront .

is this basically in a nutshell what is happening?

[keyboard150]

Linda,

You are such a hypocrite---seriously.

I'm gonna say it again and again, because you prove it again and again.

You will staunchly fight any effort to remove the skyway and expressway from the waterfront---citing that you shouldn't have to pay the taxes to remove them. (Even though doing so would open up the waterfront to tax-generating land)

However-- you fight anyone who wants to save tax-payer dollars by ending the subsidies at the Marine Drive Apartments---ON THE WATERFRONT!

It seems you never can see the "big picture" in anything. You only see the cost of removing the skyway. You only see the cost of moving the residents out of marine drive.
You don't see the benefits of available waterfront land.
You don't see the benefits of waterfront apartments/condos that are built correctly and in an aesthetically pleasing way.

You make no sense what-so-ever.