Hey Dan:
Agree with what you posted (#13) regarding an adapted reuse project:
That said, this thread is about the Village of Lancaster Tom Sweeny mixed-use project where a new building with 18 upscale apartments, with 6 lower retail boutique (specialty) shops is up for IDA consideration. This project will never see the future revenue stream you allude to in your post.Or, now that you are a thriving “rich” businessman, the poor town, poor county, poor school districts are reaping the tax money from your project, albeit at a reduced amount for a few years but better than before when they got peanuts from your vacant lot filled with stolen grocery carts
Many are of the mind that market value apartment complexes, and even retail projects are not deserving of IDA consideration. Your thoughts.
Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec
Ok so it’s like the lost revenue that taxpayers have to make up for to balance senior exemptions, veterans etc. This project is improving what was once a dumpy area that is now being revitalized. I am all in favor of this!
I believe the shops and restaurants have become a destination for residents of other towns of Erie County
to come to eat, shop and spend their money. A destination tourism project is among the IDAs allowable projects.
I agree with Dan's post #17 above.
Georgia L Schlager
Thank you for sharing and your honest opinion.
I don’t know of anyone, including myself, that doesn’t favor this project. That said, whether this project is deserving of an IDA is another matter. The Village of Lancaster just received $4.5 in state grant money to help revitalize the Village Center. That money includes ‘affordable housing.’ Mr. Sweeny’s project is ineligible for any of that grant as the apartments are upscale and market rate.
So Mr. Sweeny, who it appears does not want to downsize or downscale his project was directed to petition for an IDA. He can’t touch any of that state taxpayer funded grant money, so let’s go to the IDA and tap the taxpayers this way because he cannot complete his upscaled project without help. It wouldn’t be fair to ask him to redesign his project, right?
It was disappointing to read your justifying Sweeny’s project eligibility in getting tax breaks because ‘seniors, veteran’s, and others receive tax breaks. It is not the same.
Nor is this project of the scale that brings jobs and revenue to the municipality now, or will in the future that is deserving of an IDA. In his IDA application Sweeny acknowledges the following:
27,000 sq. ft. – total interior space
18,000 sq. ft. - housing (18 apartments)
6,000 sq. ft. – retail (6 small shops)
3,000 sq. ft. – commercial (???)
Estimated job creation & wages
20 full time employees
$20 - $25 – management
$15 - $20 – production
Mr. Sweeny will likely get an IDA approval as a similar project was recently approved by the LIDA board by a 5-2 vote. Chair Lemaster and Leary cast the only ‘no’ votes.
I still don’t understand what you’re saying about tapping the taxpayers? Can you please explain how you and your neighbors will be paying for this tax break?
I thought you had that figured out when you posted:Worst scenario: Patio homes, townhomes, and condominiums getting property tax break reductions the result of Condominium Law 339-y. Up to 50% property assessment reductions where the lost revenue stream has to be made up by the rest of the municipality taxpayers.Ok so it’s like the lost revenue that taxpayers have to make up for to balance senior exemptions, veterans etc.
It gets annoying hearing we have to pay our fair share in taxes, then hear that it is the government that subsidizes projects at no cost to the public. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
An 18 apartment – 6 boutique shops (filling 6,000 sq. ft. of building space) is going to help make the Village Center project a destination place? Seriously? Worthy of an IDA? Hopefully, not on my dime!
Then again, I have difficulty believing what was said at the LIDA public hearing: ‘Thank God Mr. Sweeny took an interest in developing the Village of Lancaster Center revitalization project as no other developers were interested.’
No other developers were interested. Was there a bidding process of which I am unaware?
When leaving office in 2022 LIDA Chair Dino Fudoli (former Town of Lancaster Supervisor and LIDA Chair) declared the agency had become anti-development. Supervisor Ruffino declared at a town board meeting that Fudoli had expressed the same sentiment to him, and he agreed, and the reason given why he resigned as a then appointed 2022 member – not because he was not nominated for Chair, as he claims.
Their remarks were not welcomed by town taxpayers who looked favorably on the direction LIDA appeared to be taking during the year to redefine its mission statement and approve only IDA applications that were in the best interest of the community. In the past numerous IDA approvals were given to projects where no job creation took place and/or estimated ’spin-off’ revenue returns never materialized.
The LIDA was considered ‘too restrictive’. Not to five members of LIDA who recently approved a similar mixed - use project (Lucas James) and will most likely approve of the VOL Sweeny mixed-use project. And there are other mixed-use and apartment complex projects just waiting to what direction LIDA is taking to hand out assistance.
Hopefully, our LIDA members read this as they seem to have abandoned a direction that would have favored – one advocated by Chair Lemaster and member Leary to protect the best interests of the community.
The following ‘Investigative Post’ report is very revealing.
The false promise of IDA subsides.
https://www.investigativepost.org/20...h5Hebwtu-PVYF8
“The system as it has evolved allows companies to get paid to do what they would have done anyway,” said Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First, a national subsidy watchdog organization.
“And that’s terrible, because it means that money got taken out of schools and other public services that would benefit everybody else.”
Indeed, some Western New York school districts forgo millions in revenue every year due to IDA tax breaks.
“If we’re going to use our limited resources, in particular school revenues and/or county tax revenues, we should make sure that the community is getting a huge return on investment for us to make that worthwhile,” he added.
Tax breaks, in reality, create few jobs.
Industrial development agencies were created in New York in 1969 amid the demise of the state’s industrial base and growing unemployment. The idea was to offer tax breaks to lower the cost of doing business in New York, considered a high-tax state.
Only retail projects — such as stores, restaurants, doctor’s offices — are explicitly banned from receiving subsidies. But even that restriction has exceptions: Subsidies for retail projects in tourist and “economically disadvantaged” areas are still allowed.
“I would say the large majority of IDAs do not contemplate in any real manner the ‘but for’ clause of economic development,” Skoufis said. “And they instead engage in what I characterize as blank check economic development: The business walks into the IDA office, tells them to jump and the response is ‘How high?’ as opposed to ‘Do you really need what you’re asking for?’
Reform coming?
Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz knows IDAs can waste taxpayer dollars.
Poloncarz, who sits on the Erie County IDA board and controls several appointments, said he came into office wanting to reform the agency. For one, he said, the agency was routinely subsidizing retail projects, a type of subsidy considered so wasteful lawmakers largely banned the practice several years ago.
Here's a few excerpts from the Village of Lancaster Community Development meetings.Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
No other developers were interested. Was there a bidding process of which I am unaware?
In the beginning they requested proposals which never came through from the developers.
Had the property for sale with one developer which was voted down by the VOLCDC board.
Then Dick YOung and Mr Sweeney made their offer.
i don't see where there was anything shady or out of the ordinary for this developers purchase and proposal
Georgia L Schlager
What a clusterf%&K !!!!
More Leary, Leary, Leary BS.
It certainly isn't Tom Sweeney's fault that his updated application wasn't posted on the LIDA website
That's on the LIDA.
Even board member Rinow seems to have seen the light on Leary's bullying.
Then, there was Paul Nosbisch's hogwash that Depew Mayor Peterson should not have voted on the Village Center Phase 2 project due to a conflict of interest.
The conflict of interest was that Mr Sweeney volunteers his time in a non-government building in the Village of Depew. WTF
On a positive note, the chair stated they will institute time limits for public comment.
What was with the camera? It never moved just aimed at the audience.
Georgia L Schlager
here's Nosbisch accusing Mayor Peterson of a conflict of interest
https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxNLz...OMoVIqnI-QXVWL
Georgia L Schlager
LIDA - too restrictive, or too unrestrained / irresponsible
Erie County Executive publicly announced he considered taking action against a mixed-use apartment / retail project in Clarence because he said it was given under the adaptive reuse provision and he says that provision doesn't apply to what happened to the land on Transit. "The adaptive reuse protocols require you to have a building to adaptively reuse. They demolished the building and are making a brand new one, it's poppycock." The adaptive reuse policy focuses on bringing older buildings back to life.
"Adaptive reuse is supposed to be used in a poverty location, a census track with distress. The last time I drove down Transit Road in that part of Clarence, the last thing you're going to say is that's a distressed census track where there's poverty. It was a bastardization of the adaptive reuse policy for them to do that," said Poloncarz.
Democratic NYS Senator Sean Ryan’s Another Voice opinion piece focused on why ‘IDA giveaways are not smart economic policy’ and presented myriad reasons for his opinion. It appears the Lancaster Industrial Development Agency (LIDA) should not be considered ‘too restrictive’ especially when considering denying the two mixed-use apartment / retail applications that recently came before the board.
The two mixed-use apartment / retail applications were approved by a 5-2 LIDA vote. Chair Lemaster and member Leary voting ‘no’. Four of the LIDA members were influenced by member Ruda’s redefining eligibility criteria from ‘Industrial / Commercial’ to basic ‘development.’
As Senator aptly declared: "Industrial development agencies give away millions to businesses each year despite mountains of evidence showing that these giveaways are bad bets made with taxpayer dollars."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
