RE: [AsburyPark] Re: Asbury park - fishman

Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:00:39 -0800

Why do you think we'll be receiving more taxes than before?  I believe (from the research I could put together) that the "improvement" (i.e., the building) is literally tax free for about 10 years.  The abatement is 16 years long and gradually disappears in the last years.  The assessor will only be able to increase "land" value.  The present properties will support the services of the new unit for about 10 years is my estimate (if I have the correct information).  There is a formula where additional money could be forthcoming based on the "developer's" net profit but I believe that will easily be avoided by certain accounting practices.  The abatement is quite dramatic and is based on a statute that was never intended to cover high-end residential development.  It was intended for not-for-profit undertakings like hospitals and limited profit entities like low and middle income housing.  Presumably the cost of purchase from Asbury Partners will allow the subsequent developers to show a limited profit. 
Your second concern is about Development Impact Costs.  They were in the news quite a bit a year or two ago when McGreevy took some action to allow municipalities to sue developers for the cost of the impact of a development.  We can certainly anticipate such law suits here as no plans have been made to cover those costs for this redevelopment.  In one of my posts several years ago I added up the typical impact costs and came up with a figure of $60 million falling on the City's shoulders.  Remember the new residents will not be paying for that or their own services because of the abatements.  Schools are a large and common impact cost of development.  For that reason the City of NY (my employer) demands payments equal to a new school (or the school if the developer chooses) when a development is likely to have 6,000 or more residents.  This development should have about 8,500 residents.  Development Impact Costs are easily researchable because they are often litigated and written about.   No your not missing anything.  The Council has said they cannot afford a long term financial plan and so no one knows how they think these matters will be resolved.   
-----Original Message-----
From: Allan Peterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 12:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AsburyPark] Re: asbury park - fishman

I can understand the tax abatement however; maybe my view is lacking information.  The city offered the abatement so the developer would have an incentive to fill the units.  Up until recently, wasn't the city receiving none or reduced taxes on this property?  With all these units going into a block the city, even with the abatement, will be receiving more revenue than before.  Plus when you have the people here, the local economy will benefit etc.  Trust me I am not taking sides with the developer, I am raising a question.  If a 200 unit building is completed and left empty, it is not going to help the town much.  Let's face it; Asbury still has a lot of nastiness in it.  These new units are going to be on the high end.  People need to be convinced that the town is changing and if there is a demand for these units it, will only help us property owners even more.  I do see a downside to this as well.  My guess is city services like police, fire, etc can be covered in the reduced tax.  Again my guess is the city was not receiving much from this land for the past 15 years.  My worry is with the schools.  More people equal more kids.  It takes big $$$ to build schools.   I re! ad someplace that they figure it would be a 50/50 split of people who use their new place year round as compared to weekends.  Maybe the town took this all into consideration.  Am I missing something here?



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That some 20 developers tried to get into Asbury and only corruption kept them out.  That Terry Weldon is a crook and he orchestrated the sale of the tax liens to one entity - Sass/Fishman.  That people work to preserve buildings because ordinary developers always build something worse.  That the tax abatements will increase our taxes by 50% for about 10 years.  That old buildings (even ugly old buildings) bring people who spend money to town.  That Fishman is just tax lien seller and shouldn't be in control of any development anywhere.  That we, the citizens of the City, are getting ripped off by a developer and our own attorney and will pay for it for a long, long time.  etc. 

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
Yahoo! Groups Links

Reply via email to