Like I said it was hard to put the tax package together based on the messy stuff i was working with (so I may be wrong). I thought the figures in your e-mail were from the tables in the presentation and were simply estimates of what would actually be paid. If I ever have time I'll go back and look at my notes.
I can tell that you think I scared Allan with my response and I didn't mean to do that. Yes, I also believe it will be worked out or I wouldn't be here. I do believe, however, that lawsuits will inevitably be the forum where it will be "worked-out;" there or bankruptcy court. The developer is running rough shod over the Council but he has made, I think, a fatal error in going too far.
-----Original Message-----
From: dfsavgny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 2:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [AsburyPark] Re: Asbury park - fishman
Mark
Are you sure that the improvements are not taxed at all? I thought
the abatement was for 65% moved up from 50%? But perhaps that's
overall including the land. My understanding is that they will be
using the sales prices of the units as the assessed value then apply
the abatement.
I think we all agree that the abatements, at these levels are
required because the subdevelopers have to pay such a high price to
Fishman. If there was no middleman, a less extensive abatement could
be given and I think perhaps warranted (shrter peiord of time).
I know some see the sky falling in a few years, but I think we, led
by a concerned group of citizens, are going to work through this. AP
is going to make it and I suspect big. Our job is to see that it is
done right. The way everything is set up now, the rest of the town
pulls the weight for the waterfront, including impervious land
coverage. I think the rest us are limited to 65% and the waterfront
can be at 90%-100%. What a joke. It should be the other way around.
I am not sorry I purchased here, so welcome to the fray Allan. What
else do we have to do with our time. AP is still a bargain. What a
crazy town. I haven't had this much fun in years.
--- In [email protected], "Tyler, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=29915/*http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_25
0>
> more. Manage less.
>
> _____
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/>
>
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Yahoo! Groups Links
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
