Let's not mix issues. Fasano should not be given a building in the
redevelopment zone because he is liked and Fishman is not.
I do not agree with land banking. I believe that the
redevelopment agreement states that if a property is taken, progress must be
made within 1 year.
Property should not be stuck in limbo but that is the fault of those who
agreed upon this agreement. Sad but true, Fishman has every right to
take advantage.
Skip Bernstein
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]ks.com> wrote:
"Â…the building should be saved. My issue is Fasano only paid
around
500 for the Baronet years after the redevelopment agreement. I
am
sure you would agree even the building as is when he purchased but
was
excluded from redevelopment would have gone for more. I also
would
not like to see the city give away more in the form of building
height
so that Fasano could this building and property for such a
price."
Curious, is your "issue" broad enough to cause you any
concern for the
fact that Fishman has not a development agreement but a
land banking
agreement, which forces owners of lands in the "blighted"
zone another
26 years to pay carrying costs and realty taxes, until at
the option
of Larry, to then be forced to sell at a price less than
Fasano's?
Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the
all-new
Yahoo! Mail Beta.
