Perhaps this election will give us the opportunity to slaughter this hog and the council that fed it
--- In [email protected], "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > isn't there a saying, "pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered" or vice > versa. > > --- In [email protected], "SkipDragon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Fatal Error in Going too Far > > There's a great expression I picked up early in my real estate > > career, "be a bear or bull, don't be a pig"; you'd > > think The Fishman > > would have learned to avoid this in his orthodox days. > > > > However, pig he is and while rooting around in what had been > > Asbury's, now his, waterfront who can be surprised that he makes > > the > > whole project a sty? > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Tyler, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > 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 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/
