I went and looked at that neighborhood today. The houses Union College took over are in good shape. Some of the houses on Seward were occupied and in decent condition before the college got them, but the end near Nott was a slum previously. Going further in, quite a number of houses are vacant, some boarded up, some not, but all of the vacant houses and even some occupied ones are moldering into the ground. I'd say that the houses near the tax exempt college owned properties have to be worth more than they would be if they were next to the soon-to-be rubble strewn vacant lot ones. So Idon't know how much tax revenue the city thinks was lost there, but I'd say it's a wash.
Roger says they laid out $26 million to protect their investment from encroaching urban decay. So, $26 million spent on a capital project that generatesalmost no revenue for the college, how would anyone expect the school to be able to pay for that if it was incurring (tax) liabilities at the same time? Those who expected Union to turn around and start paying a pilot were just whistling in the dark. Loans have to be paid back, Roger Hull understands finance, Gary McCarthy and Brian Stratton don't evidently. The Union project also included incentives for people to purchase houses in that area, which would pay taxes. I think maybe the city dropped the ball there, they could've followed up with some kind of program to support Union's efforts when that waned, but they let it go.
The one part of the project that could make any money for the school would be the conversion of the Ramada Inn into dorms. If it was bad for Union to build off campus dorms, why did they do that down at SCCC, and everybody thinks it's great? Is that building paying taxes? It took tenants away from taxpaying landlords, at any rate. |
Logged
Taj Mahal on Foster Avenue another DEM "improvement". So what if these fiscal DEM morons can't even pay the minimum on City debt? Call the bankruptcy court and move on. 
