Naturally since Galesi owns it all, and he has a 100% tax exemption with no end date, we all know the financially struggling homeowners will be paying all the property taxes while he laughs all the way to the bank.

But there is a tory in the paper about the flood issue.  Sure, all kinds of experts in so many fields are reviewing it.

What the city, county, or plex DEMS have NOT been forthcoming with is WHO will be financially responsible IF flooding is worse after the project is built.

Just as the casino (if sited in the city) will NOT generate property tax revenue for the city or county because the land is 100% tax exempt, but the DEMS have prohibited the media from explaining that fact, does anyone think---casino or not--that the dems will absolutely guarantee that the taxpayers will not pay one red cent for any flooding that might occur worse?  

Does anyone think that the DEMS have an obligation AT ALL -- moral, legal, or otherwise, to state EXPLLICITLY who will be financially responsible for any worse flooding BEFORE the first shovel of dirt is dug?

You do know that the Republicans gave birth to Metroplex, and the father of metrolex PG, operates his resturant on Galesi property?  This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing.  They both support Metroplex, they just want to have the power to control who gets the money.  

Quoted from CICERO

You do know that the Republicans gave birth to Metroplex, and the father of metrolex PG, operates his resturant on Galesi property?  This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing.  They both support Metroplex, they just want to have the power to control who gets the money.  

Thanks for pointing that out. How soon we forget.

It is beyond disingenuous (frankly, an all-out self-serving, deliberate LIE) to say that this property or ANY property that has received incentives from Metroplex is 100% tax exempt and to suggest that it will always be that way.  Some properties have received TEMPORARY and/or reduced property tax levies -- however - these come with Payments In Lieu Of Taxes levied and over a period of years the property is gradually (a portion at a time) brought back to paying the FULL property tax.
Also, it is an all-out self-serving, deliberate LIE to imply - by the way the thread was worded and in previous posts by outright statements - that somehow ALL of the money for these projects is coming from public sources (taxes).   The private sector (the developer(s) are putting up the lion's share of the money needed to complete the project.  The completed projects also generate sales tax revenue when commercial/retail establishements open within them and income tax revenue by the jobs created during the construction stage and when the completed project opens for business.
Finally, it is an all-out self-serving, deliberate LIE to continually say that the taxpayers and residents do not benefit from these projects.  Without this investment of private and public dollars these properties would remain vacant, deteriorating and our community would be moving further into decline.  With this investment of private and public dollars vacant lots are in-filled, vacant buildings are occupied, obsolete buildings are replaced with new buildings, deteriorating buildings are give fixed up and brought to new life  -- and -- most importantly -- the City-County of Schenectady generates a FORWARD-MOVING POSITIVE MOMENTUM.  This is the momentum that I call The Renaissance --- and thank God for Metroplex -- thank God for the Renaissance of our beloved community.

If tax breaks and grants for businesses generate revenue when given to select businesses, then surely it would generate MORE sales tax revenue if offered to ALL businesses.  BUT...It isn't offered to all businesses, the businesses are selected by a central planner.

If Sales Tax revenue is up, it doesn't mean there is necessarily a coorolation with Metroplex.  Sales tax is a percentage of the cost of the good or service.  If Metroplex did noting, sales tax revenue would increase with the rate of inflation.

If taxes were reduced county/city wide to reduce the tax burden for everybody, equal to the amount Metroplex subsidizes tax relief, the results would be the same.  Only difference is, it would be a level playing field for all, and more competition.

Quoted from CICERO

If tax breaks and grants for businesses generate revenue when given to select businesses, then surely it would generate MORE sales tax revenue if offered to ALL businesses.  BUT...It isn't offered to all businesses, the businesses are selected by a central planner.

If Sales Tax revenue is up, it doesn't mean there is necessarily a coorolation with Metroplex.  Sales tax is a percentage of the cost of the good or service.  If Metroplex did noting, sales tax revenue would increase with the rate of inflation.

If taxes were reduced county/city wide to reduce the tax burden for everybody, equal to the amount Metroplex subsidizes tax relief, the results would be the same.  Only difference is, it would be a level playing field for all, and more competition.

Any business can work with Metroplex -- if it plans to renovate its existing building or purchase and upgrade an existing building or build a new building for its business.

There are MORE businesses Downtown today than there were 10 years ago.  10 years - there were many vacant buildings.  Vacant buildings do NOT generate sales tax revenue.  For this and for other reasons, your sales tax argument is very weak.

Expanding the tax base and reducing spending are the only 2 ways to lower taxes.  Refusing to do anything to attract redevelopment/development dollars and new businesses will NOT reduce taxes -- it has NEVER worked that way and NEVER will.   If you let the community decline and deteriorate -- which is the plan that you and him/her whose name shall not be spoken advocate -- you will only INCREASE taxes and make matters worse.  

I pray daily for enlightenment and the conversion of the hard hearts of all the naysayers.
I thank God daily and ask for God's to continue to bless and inspire Mr. Gillen and his wonderful team at Metroplex and the County Economic Development Office.  Well done -- good and faithful servants!  

expanding the tax base in the last 10 years = doubled my tax bill here in the city

now how about we try reducing spending for the next 10 years?  

Quoted from sanfordy2

expanding the tax base in the last 10 years = doubled my tax bill here in the city

now how about we try reducing spending for the next 10 years?  

How? Where do we make cuts to achieve that goal? Police? Fire Department? What services do we eliminate to reduce spending? It's not that cut and dried.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Any business can work with Metroplex -- if it plans to renovate its existing building or purchase and upgrade an existing building or build a new building for its business.  

...or threaten to leave the County.  Then you vacate one building within the county, and the taxpayer will help build another brand new building for you.  Tax breaks and all.

I find it ironic, that democrats who are the crusaders against crony capitalism and stand up for the little guy, actually now openly say, the Government agency will subsidize you, as long as you have deep pockets.  So the "little guy" who can't afford to redevelop or purchase property, yet still has to pay their full taxes, has to now compete with the multimillion dollar companies that are getting wined and dined on the taxpayer dime.

Quoted from Alva White

How? Where do we make cuts to achieve that goal? Police? Fire Department? What services do we eliminate to reduce spending? It's not that cut and dried.

It is that cut and dry.  The city can file bankruptcy and restructure all the city contracts.  It's gonna happen one way or the other.

Quoted from CICERO

It is that cut and dry.  The city can file bankruptcy and restructure all the city contracts.  It's gonna happen one way or the other.

It's a possibility. I will say though, that I've been hearing of this bankruptcy thing for 20 years or so. Are you saying it's gonna happen in MY lifetime (what with genetics and such I figure maybe another 12-15 yrs.)? Or another 20 years? I'm not saying you're wrong, but frankly I don't see it happening anytime in the near future.

Quoted from Alva White

How? Where do we make cuts to achieve that goal? Police? Fire Department? What services do we eliminate to reduce spending? It's not that cut and dried.

but it is...and yes both are great places to start....how about the snap crews too?   how many of both make 100k+ per year?

thankfully its almost reality check time for the city  

as more city taxpayers flee it will get easier to make the cuts

Quoted from Alva White

It's a possibility. I will say though, that I've been hearing of this bankruptcy thing for 20 years or so. Are you saying it's gonna happen in MY lifetime (what with genetics and such I figure maybe another 12-15 yrs.)? Or another 20 years? I'm not saying you're wrong, but frankly I don't see it happening anytime in the near future.

It all depends.  Based on some circumstantial evidence, property values continue to fall and the city refuses to grant grievance reassessments.  If they reassess they either have to increase the levy and increase taxes, or reduce spending.  As you stated, there isn't the political will to restructure contracts.  I don't see property values increasing in the near future, since the housing market is linked to national monetary policy.  So that leads me to believe bankruptcy is the only viable solution.  You see the state pushing consolidation so the money in the suburbs can support the dying cities like Schenectady.  If that happens, the Schenectady suburbs will be the equivalent to Fergusen Missouri.

It could happen quickly, it could take years.  If interest rates begin to climb, it will happen more rapidly.

Quoted from sanfordy2

but it is...and yes both are great places to start....how about the snap crews too?   how many of both make 100k+ per year?

thankfully its almost reality check time for the city  

as more city taxpayers flee it will get easier to make the cuts

Ok, so let's cut all those budgets by, oh say 20%. Just an arbitrary number really. I don't know how many jobs that would affect, but once again we'll say 5 cops and 6 fire. So now, the already crime-ridden city is down 5 patrolmen. Crime goes up. Need more cops on the street. How? Hire more cops? Nope we just got rid of some. Guess we'll have to ask the guys we still have to work overtime. Oops there go the budget cuts. Same goes for fire. Snap crews? I have no idea what that is, so I really can't offer an opinion there.

From what I'm reading, it sounds like you'd be willing to accept less services in exchange for a smaller tax burden. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. You could eliminate garbage pickup. But what kind of savings are you going to get in return? You'll still have to pay a private hauler.

None of this is easy. For every dollar you might think you're getting by eliminating services, you're still have to pay somebody else.
I just don't see any real solutions being offered. Anywhere. By anyone. Including all the developers.

And really, this whole thing has been going on for decades. I know, I've lived it. I've seen it prosperous here and I watched the decline. And I watched as each bit of "urban renewal" through the years promised a "new dawn". And I saw all that fall apart. And now we're in yet another "new dawn". Will this one be the one that works? I don't know, I'm not that smart. I do remain optimistic.

Like I said it isn't that cut and dried.

Quoted from CICERO

It all depends.  Based on some circumstantial evidence, property values continue to fall and the city refuses to grant grievance reassessments.  If they reassess they either have to increase the levy and increase taxes, or reduce spending.  As you stated, there isn't the political will to restructure contracts.  I don't see property values increasing in the near future, since the housing market is linked to national monetary policy.  So that leads me to believe bankruptcy is the only viable solution.  You see the state pushing consolidation so the money in the suburbs can support the dying cities like Schenectady.  If that happens, the Schenectady suburbs will be the equivalent to Fergusen Missouri.

It could happen quickly, it could take years.  If interest rates begin to climb, it will happen more rapidly.

Yeah, I still think you're decades away from that though.

I'll tell you what. We'll chip in on a bottle of really good Brandy. We'll get a third party to hold it for us. If the city goes bankrupt before I die, you get the booze. If I die and we're still not in bankruptcy, you have to sit and watch your buddy Box A Rox drink it. He'll then accompany you to register to vote, where you have to register Democrat. Assuming you pass the age requirement, you'll then march down to the local recruiting office and enlist in the Navy. Do we have a wager?