Topics

1. Ben says:

   March 10, 2016 at 4:23 pm

   Unless your house is a $25 million dollar apartment building, I think you pasted the wrong link there.

2. Matthew Denker says:

   March 10, 2016 at 4:30 pm

   Oh my. So very sorry. Link fixed.

3. John says:

   March 11, 2016 at 10:51 am

   Thank you for talking about the green space issue. I don’t think people think before regurgitating “green space, green space, we need more green space.”Rochester has an excess of parks, they are just poorly maintained and under used. I don’t know if the idiots yelling for green space even know all the parks around.

4. Matthew Denker says:

   March 11, 2016 at 6:06 pm

   It’s a bit of a downer to see people asking for more parks regularly when not using the ones they have (and not identifying revenue to maintain new parks – a NYC problem). I think it goes with a general belief that the suburbs are so great because they have all this green space. Every house has it (that’s largely unused) and it’s everywhere else too (in unused parks, in fenced off open areas, etc). I cant say I agree. Anyway, I plan on doing a piece on parks and Rochester in the near future, so I guess stay posted.

5. John L says:

   March 17, 2016 at 12:05 pm

   I hope the Court Street development doesn’t look tacky…too early to tell, I look forward to seeing more renderings and details.

   Thanks for the updates!

6. John L says:

   March 17, 2016 at 12:06 pm

   I am guessing the picture at the top of the article is the riverside view of the Court Street building…looks cool from that side, I will say that!

7. Malcolm Kelly says:

   March 17, 2016 at 12:44 pm

   With regards to the Court Street project: I think that the issue is not green space, but rather the $8 million (correct?) that COMIDA gave yesterday to Morgan for his projects.

   Aren’t COMIDA monies supposed to support projects that would not happen without public support/”incentives”? It seems to me that supporting housing along the riverfront is a project that would happen without taxpayer dollars.

   I do not think that all development is good development. And let us be honest: When the media or folks on this site state that Morgan’s project will cost $25 million, we have to wonder how much of that will come from taxpayers and various “incentives” that the city, county, state, and feds (in other words, taxpayers) cover? My guess: most, if not all and more, of it.

8. Matthew Denker says:

   March 21, 2016 at 9:55 am

   Look, I’m sympathetic to the tax-break argument, although I would suggest that many projects like this don’t pencil out in Rochester without it. With taxes where they are, the bill becomes phenomenal pretty quick. I think 37 Eagle Street is going to end up costing me some $27,000 a year in taxes. That’s pretty extreme for just a house (even a nice one). Anyway, taxes are a valid argument, but the article says this:

   “Another concern – lack of green and outdoor space in downtown.

   “Cities need green spaces and that’s a perfect place right along the river which is so beautiful,” said a lifelong Rochester resident. He added that there are better ways to utilize the land.”

   Switching back to the cost of this development, you need look no further than the COMIDA application to see that what you are saying just isn’t accurate. The project is going to take $32m to build, and there will be a $25m mortgage on the property. The project will then create approximately $9m in new revenue for the region over the next 10 years. This includes a variety of taxes, including the change in property tax from $2300 a year to $800,000 a year(!!!). The incentives COMIDA are signing off on are a variety of tax breaks (including sales tax breaks on construction material costs, in case you’re curious why they are getting more back on sales taxes than the building is generating) totaling $4.5m. That is approximately half of the expected direct benefits (and none of any indirect benefits from 124 professional households moving back down town including: more local shopping, less pollution, less traffic driving into the city, additional sales at Dinosaur, etc.). I do still think this sort of number is open to criticism, but not of the kind that looks like most, if not all and more.

9. Malcolm Kelly says:

   March 21, 2016 at 12:53 pm

   What your response does not accurately state is that the County and COMIDA often offer tax breaks and incentives long before the developers even have put any money into a project. I have seen it happen first-hand. Moreover, the job creation arguments rarely pan out. When they do, they often cost 100s of thousands of dollars per hire. A great amount of what journalist and author David Cay Johnston has spent decades studying is found here: http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/rochester/such-a-deal-youre-subsidizing-upscale-offices/Content?oid=2128672. The names and people and organizations and programs change, but the results are the same: the taxpayers subsidize all of the development in Rochester.

10. Matthew Denker says:

    March 21, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    I see what you’re saying, but I think there are a number of things going on here.

    1.) The tax breaks are on future revenues, so it really doesn’t matter when a developer puts money in. I mean, the closest ‘break’ is for the sales tax on construction materials, and to get it, you’re still buying things. Yes, there are other forms of incentives (including but not limited to – selling land below market value, offering low interest loans, etc.), but in the case of this project, the incentives are tax breaks, so that’s what we’re discussing at the moment.

    2.) This project isn’t claiming many permanent jobs (and I didn’t even bring that up in my argument about it – I think the benefits are from the people moving downtown), so yes, 3 permanent jobs for the 4.5 million dollars doesn’t look good, if that’s the metric you want to go by.

    3.) The article you link to pretty clearly absolves the developers of the politically leaning handouts and points out that the tenants of their buildings are the ones getting all the perks, so I’m not sure how that applies here. Certainly having the incentives makes a developer’s property more attractive, as far as getting tenants in the door, but like all tax breaks, these are only helpful if you are already paying taxes. If you’re a small business with almost no profits, you’re not getting anything.

    4.) Subsidizing development in the city is absolutely still worth it when you consider the ridiculous subsidies that go to being outside the city. Everyone in Monroe county pays the cost in the form of increased traffic, poor health outcomes, and automobile ownership when development happens outside the city. Additionally, the taxpayers also quietly pay for the infrastructure improvements required to support any new development (new sewer and gas lines, widened roads, etc). The check cut to incentivize downtown development is only more obvious, not larger. If anyone were to begin actually swallowing the externalities inherent to a largely suburban lifestyle, they could not afford it, and suddenly the cost of city development would look quite appealing.

    5.) Like many people, you then pin this problem to Rochester. It is much more endemic to the US in general. Sure there aren’t any subsidies for developing in downtown Boulder, but that same development is demanding $500psf when sold. It doesn’t cost that to build a building. Unfortunately, when even pricey real estate in Rochester is commanding less than 1/3rd of that, there’s no real way to generate more of it to get people back in the city, which is really what Rochester, and cities in general, need after the ongoing failure of the suburban experiment.

Post a Comment...