Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

hcwhitewolf t1_iqni089 wrote

For people who won't read the article:

Current Property Taxes on the build: $499K per year, over the 30 year term they are discussing, that's $14.97M.

Estimated Property Taxes over 30 years for the redeveloped building: $56M.

Tax Break: $29M

Estimated Amount to be paid over 30 years: $26.8M.

Net tax revenue gain for the city w/ tax break: $11.83M.

Net gain w/o tax break: $40.83M.

27

LTG-Jon t1_iqoho1k wrote

Or it could be that the net gain without the break would be $0.

I don’t like giveaways to developers, but from the point of view of the city, increasing revenue by $11 million looks like a good plan.

13

gusterfell t1_iqou8lc wrote

So many people think giving a developer a tax break costs the city money. If the break is necessary for the development to get built, it means the city gains money.

11

NewEnglandr t1_iqoxru8 wrote

I don't disagree with the tax break.

What upsets me is that I have run a small, RI business, for fifteen years. I have never gotten a tax break, and I do pay taxes, aka make some form of profit.

13

realbadaccountant t1_iqqhlu9 wrote

Not only is the City increasing its revenue through this break on the property in question, it will increase the values of the surrounding businesses, generate more sales for practically every nearby business, and drive down certain types of crime that stem from abandoned property. It will also create many jobs within the city. This is a slam dunk.

4

listen_youse t1_ir0ggsf wrote

Saying it again. The zeppelin dock and observation deck must be a permanent, easily accessible public amenity.

2

winter-14 t1_iqxgzq2 wrote

A little insight on the poor owner of High Rock, who can't afford to pay the taxes he owes...

1

Kraft-cheese-enjoyer t1_iqnztig wrote

So they’re giving a 30M tax break for a property worth 14M? Why not just buy the property for 14M and administer it as they wish?

0

daymanahhhahhhhhh t1_iqo1b72 wrote

The tax break is a reduction of property taxes over 30 years. Not a 30 M lump sum upfront payment.

13

htzer t1_iqr57fq wrote

At the end of the day we get some fancy a** upscale building that only the 1% can afford. 80% of these units are at market rate which means super expensive.

−3

kayakyakr t1_iqrqhlv wrote

Increasing inventory generally leads to lower prices across the board or improved services as businesses move back into the area to support new residents. In other words, a big boost in inventory should lead to a drop in what that market rate is.

And with the bubble popping on our low interest inventory scarcity market that's driven up costs, the effect should be magnified, especially since the first of these units should be coming onto the market about the time that the market has stabilized at it's new, lower floor and people are looking to buy once again.

3

degggendorf t1_iqvkdzn wrote

Maybe you're different, but I prefer a city with fancy-ass buildings than vacant and decaying ones, even if I don't personally live in them.

2