Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Not all folks share your view.  Most would rather that the vacant buildings and vacant lots be redeveloped --- and this is the key part which you fail to realize --- so that they will INCREASE in value and will ADD value to the property tax base.   Your shortsighted view would prefer to see the properties remain undeveloped and UNDERVALUED paying full tax on a LOWER value ... and over the years deteriorating and LOSING value.

Your approach is a LOSE-LOSE.   The Metroplex approach is a WIN-WIN.

That's are false argument.  You make the assumption first that "most" would rather see the vacant building redeveloped.  Which may be true.  At what cost?  The fact remains, millions and millions of dollars have been given away, and the city residential property values are still plummeting.  So not only did the city resident lose money over the past 16 years in additional sales tax.  The sales tax increase to fund Metroplex. But they also lost tens on thousands of dollars in equity in their homes.  

Metroplex is an absolute failure for most resident.  Unless you are measuring the intrinsic value of shiny new building in the city.  But if you measure the actual ROI, I challenge you to find 51% of city resident that have more money in their pocket now, than prior to Metroplex.  

Quoted from CICERO

I challenge you to find 51% of city resident that have more money in their pocket now, than prior to Metroplex.  

says it all

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Not all folks share your view.  Most would rather that the vacant buildings and vacant lots be redeveloped --- and this is the key part which you fail to realize --- so that they will INCREASE in value and will ADD value to the property tax base.   Your shortsighted view would prefer to see the properties remain undeveloped and UNDERVALUED paying full tax on a LOWER value ... and over the years deteriorating and LOSING value.

Your approach is a LOSE-LOSE.   The Metroplex approach is a WIN-WIN.

DV, you state above that vacant buildings getting redeveloped will increase the tax base.


There were vacant buildings downtown before 10 or so years ago.   And now they have been developed.   How about now you state what the impact has been on the city's tax base and the homeowners' property values.

I didn't thin you would answer that one.


While there were vacant buildings before, there WERE some occupied LONG TIME TAXPAYING buildings that were forced to pay their own taxes AND the taxes of the neighboring newly developed buildings downtown.   It seems quite obviously that you do not come into the city.   Those long time taxpaying properties downtown have closed up in recent years.

And would you care to answer how many more vacant residential properties there are throughout the neighborhoods--you know, where the taxpayers actually live.   Apparently you really do NOT come INTO the city because if you really did, you would SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES that their is a massive huge increase of vacant residential properties throughout all neighborhoods.  

Collectively the loss of tax revenue from the vacant houses far exceeds the puny pilots collected from the newly developed buildings.

The net effect of downtown's so called redevelopment is a net LOSS.   Thus the city must drastically increase taxes on the every decreasing homeonwers.

Think of it this way.   If a vacant property paid $25,000 in taxes before, IF that property pays a pilot today, maybe it's $30,000, hardly a win for the city.   Couple that with the drastic reduction in property value, for example, that little amount the city gains in a puny piloit is more than offset by the reduction in taxes by the taxpaying businesses downtown, for example, Subway got an assessment reduction so less taxes.   And that bank that was $1.6 MILLION assessment is not less than $300,000 in assessment.   Do you even remotely have a clue as to the net loss.


I and others are NOT opposed to developing downtown, but it must be done EXCLUSIVELY from the private pockets of the developers and property owners.  

The city has shifted the tax burden from downtown to the homeowners, and that causes the tax bills of the homeowners to rise.   When taxes rise, people can't afford them.   When homeowners can't afford to pay their taxes, the city forecloses.   When the city forecloses, the house becomes vacant.   When houses become vacant it brings down the property values of the neighboring houses which then causes the tax RATE to increase which in turn causes the tax BILLS of the other homeowners to rise.   When the taxes rise, those homeowners cannot afford it.   When they can't afford to pay the taxes, the cty forecloses.   When the city forecloses, the house becomes vacant.   When the house become vacant it brings down the property values of other neighboring houses.   Etc.   Do you see the endless cycle?  

Also when house become vacant not only does it cause the tax BILLS of neighboring houses to rise, but it also causes the city to have the added expense of maintaining the vacant houses.

There is no difference between the vacant houses that do not pay taxes and the new properties downtown that do not pay their FULL share of taxes.   BOTH situations cause the taxes to rise on the homeowners.   When the taxes are high, the homeowners can't pay.   When the homeowners can't pay, the city takes the houses   Go back up two paragraphs to see what happens.

And remember, the rise in taxes all started with the city jacking the taxes up on the homeowners by exempting the millionaires downtown from paying taxes.

The poor cannot be expected to pay the taxes of the rich.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

So you would rather have the Olender Building and the Robinson lot remain vacant?  

nope, I'd like the business do the business thing and invest their own F'EN $$ and see if it works....

even business entrepreneurs seem to have turned into government cogs...that's a plus for the public schools and their
outcome tic

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Not all folks share your view.  Most would rather that the vacant buildings and vacant lots be redeveloped --- and this is the key part which you fail to realize --- so that they will INCREASE in value and will ADD value to the property tax base.   Your shortsighted view would prefer to see the properties remain undeveloped and UNDERVALUED paying full tax on a LOWER value ... and over the years deteriorating and LOSING value.

Your approach is a LOSE-LOSE.   The Metroplex approach is a WIN-WIN.

most folks are so beat by the stockholm syndrome tax that they quit the fight.

Quoted from CICERO

That's are false argument.  You make the assumption first that "most" would rather see the vacant building redeveloped.  Which may be true.  At what cost?  The fact remains, millions and millions of dollars have been given away, and the city residential property values are still plummeting.  So not only did the city resident lose money over the past 16 years in additional sales tax.  The sales tax increase to fund Metroplex. But they also lost tens on thousands of dollars in equity in their homes.  

Metroplex is an absolute failure for most resident.  Unless you are measuring the intrinsic value of shiny new building in the city.  But if you measure the actual ROI, I challenge you to find 51% of city resident that have more money in their pocket now, than prior to Metroplex.  

Your argument is actually the false argument.  Most people WOULD prefer to see vacant buildings and vacant land redeveloped.  You even admit that.  
Property values will plummet as long as these vacant or underutilized properties are allowed to remain in that condition.  
Millions have dollars have been spent -- the vast majority of which has been dollars from the PRIVATE sector investing in the City-County of Schenectady.  If Metroplex uses a few hundred thousand dollars as leverage to get a private investor to invest 5x, 6x, 7x or more that amount of the investor's own money --- that is a good thing.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Your argument is actually the false argument.  Most people WOULD prefer to see vacant buildings and vacant land redeveloped.  You even admit that.  
Property values will plummet as long as these vacant or underutilized properties are allowed to remain in that condition.  
Millions have dollars have been spent -- the vast majority of which has been dollars from the PRIVATE sector investing in the City-County of Schenectady.  If Metroplex uses a few hundred thousand dollars as leverage to get a private investor to invest 5x, 6x, 7x or more that amount of the investor's own money --- that is a good thing.

A handful of vacant building downtown 10 +/- years ago, but while some buildings are no longer vacant, the result of all this stuff downtown is HUNDREDS of beautiful vacant houses up for sale and despite asking prices even 50% lower than the assessment value, NO ONE is buying these houses.   Then also HUNDREDS of vacant tax foreclosed homes (costing the taxpayers a bundle in lost tax revenue combined with the expense of maintaining them -- that amount is greater than the total amount of pilot money, so NET LOSS).   Then tons of abandoned, boarded up homes.

Downtown used to be a ghost town, today it has all the gin mills, but other than a couple stores to buy a few little trinkets, there is NOTHING to buy donwntown--not clothing or shoes, not housewares and home needs, no DVD/CD's, no tools/hardware.   But today, there are so many vacant and abandoned houses (due to people fleeing the city in droves and cannot afford to pay downtown's taxes IN ADDITION to their own) that all the neighborhoods are becoming ghost towns.   And THAT is a FACT and it has been proven with EVIDENCE that has been posted here many times.

What are taxpayers/residents/homeowners in the city getting in return for the government taking their money and spending it uncontrollably on downtown?

Falling tax base
Falling home values
Falling home sales
Falling home sale prices
Loss of equity in one's home
Increase in houses being put up for sale
Homeowners stuck paying two mortgages (they CANNOT afford it)
Increase in beautiful stately very well built houses that simply are not selling because all the work on downtown has resulted in people NOT wanting to buy and live in the city.
Increase in tax foreclosures
Increase in mortgage foreclosures as people cannot pay their mortgages.
Increase in homeowners being underwater on their mortgages (DV, that is when people owe more on their mortgages then their home is worth
Inability for homeowners to refinance to a lower rate because the appraised value of their house is less than the refinance amount (the amount of the balance on the mortgage)
Increase in vacant and/or abandoned houses
Reduction in essential services
Increase in taxes.


This above list -- are these impacts good for the residents of the city?

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Your argument is actually the false argument.  Most people WOULD prefer to see vacant buildings and vacant land redeveloped.  You even admit that.  

Sure I said it may be true.  But you assume that most people want it done by raising the sales tax and funneling it to a central planner, then given to selected weathly developers.  If the other option is to lower sales and property taxes across the board, it would encourage private capital to invest into Schenectady and occupy the vacant buildings.  The lower property tax and sales tax would actually help everybody, and free up money for to be spent in the local economy.  The sales tax was raised .5% to fund metroplex.  How many millions were taken out of the local economy(people's pockets) and transferred to the local government?

Quoted from CICERO

Sure I said it may be true.  But you assume that most people want it done by raising the sales tax and funneling it to a central planner, then given to selected weathly developers.  If the other option is to lower sales and property taxes across the board, it would encourage private capital to invest into Schenectady and occupy the vacant buildings.  The lower property tax and sales tax would actually help everybody, and free up money for to be spent in the local economy.  The sales tax was raised .5% to fund metroplex.  How many millions were taken out of the local economy(people's pockets) and transferred to the local government?

$0 -- it was not "taken out of the local economy" -- it was reinvested BACK into the local economy.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

$0 -- it was not "taken out of the local economy" -- it was reinvested BACK into the local economy.

Huh?  Of course it was taken out of the local economy.  Regular everyday people has less money to spend.  And the money taken out was given to a small group if people for them to give the money to who they choose.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Not all folks share your view.  Most would rather that the vacant buildings and vacant lots be redeveloped --- and this is the key part which you fail to realize --- so that they will INCREASE in value and will ADD value to the property tax base.   Your shortsighted view would prefer to see the properties remain undeveloped and UNDERVALUED paying full tax on a LOWER value ... and over the years deteriorating and LOSING value.

Your approach is a LOSE-LOSE.   The Metroplex approach is a WIN-WIN.

Maybe all folks don't share my view. But the folks (homeowners) that I talk to are constantly taking issue over their high taxes. And we can all agree that the homeowners in the city of Schenectady are out of control and almost unsustainable. We were just talking to 2 different city homeowners that are packing as we speak and are just walking away from their properties. They have grieved their taxes with no resolve.

It is the successful businesses that help shoulder the tax base for the homeowners. Until that happens in the city of Schenectady, and the homeowners see lower taxes....METROPLEX/GILLEN is a failure!

And as a side note....this isn't a dem or rep issue...cause if the reps were in power...they would have done the exact same thing except they would be in the driver's seat.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Not all folks share your view.  Most would rather that the vacant buildings and vacant lots be redeveloped --- and this is the key part which you fail to realize --- so that they will INCREASE in value and will ADD value to the property tax base.   Your shortsighted view would prefer to see the properties remain undeveloped and UNDERVALUED paying full tax on a LOWER value ... and over the years deteriorating and LOSING value.

Your approach is a LOSE-LOSE.   The Metroplex approach is a WIN-WIN.

DV, Metroplex is a "win win"   ????????

HOW is it a win win??????????    





Why do you REFUSE to state how a falling tax base is a "win-win"    ??????

Falling home value are a win-win?     How?
Falling home sales are a win-win?      How????
Falling home sale prices are a win-win?     How?????
Due to massively falling property values, homeowners are paying taxes on assessment values that bare no connection to the market values of their houses and thus every homeowner is being taxed in an unfair manner, so DV, please state how that is a win-win?
Reduction/elimination of essential city services - how is that a win win?

Putting unnecessary fancy lighting on Erie Blvd instead of paying for necessary road paving in the neighborhoods -- please explain how that is a win-win.


Increasing taxes on the homeowners?   How is that a win-win?





Once again, as always, I state the truth, DV, the ONLY thing you do is SPEW NONSENSE BABBLE and you NEVER DISCUSSS !!!!!!!  






Can you cite even one teeny weeny shred of EVIDENCE to support how Metroplex is helping the tax base in the city?   How is it helping alleviate the tax burden upon the financially struggling homeowners?  

If metroplex is a win-win, can you explain why there are WAY MORE tax foreclosed houses and abandoned houses and blight in the NEIGHBORHOODS than there ever was before Metroplex.   PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION.  

Why do you CONSTANTLY REFUSE to answer these questions??????

a casino and some janitor jobs, waiting tables, bartending, washing dishes, healthcare workers and the like will prevent the
above problem?

poor jobs=poor neighborhoods

the government CANNOT employ everyone nor can it support everyone....the storehouses of Rome were used just before
Rome burned.

$15/hour(and that's a very high estimate, it's more like $10/hour or less) does not make a community affluent

you see, minimum wage is NOT the issue it's the red herring.....the hebrew slaves had hebrew task masters....it's insidious

Quoted from CICERO

Huh?  Of course it was taken out of the local economy.  Regular everyday people has less money to spend.  And the money taken out was given to a small group if people for them to give the money to who they choose.

Huh?   EVERYONE knows that the money was invested IN the community.  Therefore, the money was NOT taken out of the local economy.  These projects create jobs during the construction phase and once completed -- so these workers have money to spend.