|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 31, 2014 7:05:37 GMT -6
What type of taxpayer supported economic incentives could the city exclusively offer to a big developer that cant be offered to a developer buying off a private entity? Is there a law (and anything to make them abide by it) to keep them from saying this? Well Mr.(or Mrs.) Nubiz, since it would result in getting ABC properties back on the tax rolls, I am very confident that the council will approve the TIF funds for all of the upgrades that you need. If you want to purchase DEF properties so that you can apply for the funds, there is a chance that it might be approved. Since the developer knows that they will have to go to the city for license and inspection approvals, doesn't that inherently create an aspect of not wanting to go against them by purchasing DEF properties? They wouldn't want to go against the City and find themselves in a position where they were publicly declared illegal residents or be given a requirement of industrial zoning for their project, would they? In November I had a meeting with Vern Reynolds. He was the theatre owner that I heard started working on a building on the north edge of town after he was given a set of requirements from the City for the building, but then stopped and scrapped the project, losing money, because he was given another big requirement. We didn't have time to talk about the particulars of that situation, but knowing that I was from Streator, he did indicate that he was not given fair treatment from our City. The City's power and advantages just makes it unfair for individuals to have to try to compete in business with them. dog, I haven't heard back from you. Do you now accept that there are unfair advantages for our City competing against private business?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Jan 31, 2014 8:20:30 GMT -6
Is there a law (and anything to make them abide by it) to keep them from saying this? Well Mr.(or Mrs.) Nubiz, since it would result in getting ABC properties back on the tax rolls, I am very confident that the council will approve the TIF funds for all of the upgrades that you need. If you want to purchase DEF properties so that you can apply for the funds, there is a chance that it might be approved. Since the developer knows that they will have to go to the city for license and inspection approvals, doesn't that inherently create an aspect of not wanting to go against them by purchasing DEF properties? They wouldn't want to go against the City and find themselves in a position where they were publicly declared illegal residents or be given a requirement of industrial zoning for their project, would they? In November I had a meeting with Vern Reynolds. He was the theatre owner that I heard started working on a building on the north edge of town after he was given a set of requirements from the City for the building, but then stopped and scrapped the project, losing money, because he was given another big requirement. We didn't have time to talk about the particulars of that situation, but knowing that I was from Streator, he did indicate that he was not given fair treatment from our City. The City's power and advantages just makes it unfair for individuals to have to try to compete in business with them. dog, I haven't heard back from you. Do you now accept that there are unfair advantages for our City competing against private business? No, I do not accept that there ARE unfair advantages written into the rules for our city. I do believe though, there is a potential that an abuse of power COULD create an unfair advantage. IMO, I don't think that will happen. On a side note, you wanted the city to compete against private business in terms of bringing fiber optics to Streator, but you are against them competing against private realtors and developers. Why the apparent contradiction?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 31, 2014 8:46:29 GMT -6
No, I do not accept that there ARE unfair advantages written into the rules for our city. I do believe though, there is a potential that an abuse of power COULD create an unfair advantage. IMO, I don't think that will happen. On a side note, you wanted the city to compete against private business in terms of bringing fiber optics to Streator, but you are against them competing against private realtors and developers. Why the apparent contradiction? I'm glad that you brought that up. I did hear that I-fiber has been lit in Streator. What is the name of the company that is providing the infrastructure and service to businesses now? Our City offices and some institutions may be enjoying the benefits of the technology, but for our community to enjoy the economic development advantages from it, it needs to be available for existing and potential employers. When will it be available for businesses here? Will it be years after Ottawa, Pontiac, LaSalle, Peru, etc.? Has the company that is going to provide the infrastructure been identified? What companies are discussing it? I suspect that there will be no good answers to the questions I am asking. If I am wrong, I will enjoy admitting it, because that would mean that more jobs and uses for our buildings could be on the way. If there are no answers, that is why I think it would be acceptable for our City to invest in a municipally owned utility. Many communities try to attract businesses by advertising their public utilities. Having City sewer might have been a plus a century ago. Today, information delivery infrastructure with speed of light limitations would produce a lot more results, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 31, 2014 9:02:47 GMT -6
No, I do not accept that there ARE unfair advantages written into the rules for our city. I do believe though, there is a potential that an abuse of power COULD create an unfair advantage. IMO, I don't think that will happen. Abuse of power? Do you really think it would be considered an abuse of power to point out that it would be in the citizens' and council's best interest to approve TIF funds for improvements that would put properties back on the tax roles over other properties of investors that already pay tax? How would that ever be considered an abuse of power?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Jan 31, 2014 9:38:00 GMT -6
No, I do not accept that there ARE unfair advantages written into the rules for our city. I do believe though, there is a potential that an abuse of power COULD create an unfair advantage. IMO, I don't think that will happen. Abuse of power? Do you really think it would be considered an abuse of power to point out that it would be in the citizens' and council's best interest to approve TIF funds for improvements that would put properties back on the tax roles over other properties of investors that already pay tax? How would that ever be considered an abuse of power? You sorta lost me here Kyle. This was your quote that I was referring to: "Well Mr.(or Mrs.) Nubiz, since it would result in getting ABC properties back on the tax rolls, I am very confident that the council will approve the TIF funds for all of the upgrades that you need. If you want to purchase DEF properties so that you can apply for the funds, there is a chance that it might be approved." You said the city WILL approve the TIF funds if ABC were bought, but the city MIGHT approve TIF funds properties DEF were purchased. I would consider that a potential abuse of power that the city could use to sell their property over a private realtor.I would hope that the city would try to sell their property first, but once again, I don't see the city using that tactic to sell their property over someone elses, just like I don't see them buying property for the purpose of competing against private parties. I see them doing it to try to move the city forward. After all this discussion, it still comes down to the fact that if you think it is bad, then the city is corrupt and backwards thinking, and if it is something you think is good, then the city isn't progressive enough and needs to be replaced. I agree with some of the things you complain about. Learn a lesson from Mr Barichello of the Times. He has a good approach of discussing the issues that you talk about without all the whining that you provide. He has some very informative articles that make a person think about the situation, and not the drama associated with it.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 31, 2014 10:18:33 GMT -6
You sorta lost me here Kyle. This was your quote that I was referring to: "Well Mr.(or Mrs.) Nubiz, since it would result in getting ABC properties back on the tax rolls, I am very confident that the council will approve the TIF funds for all of the upgrades that you need. If you want to purchase DEF properties so that you can apply for the funds, there is a chance that it might be approved." You said the city WILL approve the TIF funds if ABC were bought, but the city MIGHT approve TIF funds properties DEF were purchased. I would consider that a potential abuse of power that the city could use to sell their property over a private realtor.I would hope that the city would try to sell their property first, but once again, I don't see the city using that tactic to sell their property over someone elses, just like I don't see them buying property for the purpose of competing against private parties. I see them doing it to try to move the city forward. After all this discussion, it still comes down to the fact that if you think it is bad, then the city is corrupt and backwards thinking, and if it is something you think is good, then the city isn't progressive enough and needs to be replaced. I agree with some of the things you complain about. Learn a lesson from Mr Barichello of the Times. He has a good approach of discussing the issues that you talk about without all the whining that you provide. He has some very informative articles that make a person think about the situation, and not the drama associated with it. Read it again, I did not just say "will". "Will" and expressing the opinion, "very confident they will" are two very different statements. I asked you for a law that it breaks. If it isn't against a law, then it is legal and if it is a true statement then, is it really an abuse of power? They would just be telling it like it is. You say that you don't think that they would abuse power, but after receiving a requirement that I am confident goes against our laws, I think they would. if it is something you think is good, then the city isn't progressive enough and needs to be replaced. I did not say that about the Mayor's Municipal Equipment Expo or his suggestion that heavy equipment not be allowed to bust up our sidewalks. Please, at least keep it honest. I know that I am critical of our City, but I feel I have a right to be. I don't like the direction our community continues to go or the way that they treat people. Pointing out what I see that is wrong to ask for change is my right.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Jan 31, 2014 12:01:56 GMT -6
. I did not say that about the Mayor's Municipal Equipment Expo or his suggestion that heavy equipment not be allowed to bust up our sidewalks. Please, at least keep it honest. Merely a token accolade on your part.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 31, 2014 15:28:15 GMT -6
I agree with some of the things you complain about. Learn a lesson from Mr Barichello of the Times. He has a good approach of discussing the issues that you talk about without all the whining that you provide. He has some very informative articles that make a person think about the situation, and not the drama associated with it. Why would you compare me to a newspaper reporter? I'm not trying to write newspaper articles, which is a lot different from having an open forum discussion. You may see my pointing out what I think is wrong as whining, but I feel this is the time to speak up about what is put into the plan that is supposed to shape our future. There is no drama, just discussion. You challenge much of what I have to say; whether the City has plans to land bank, whether or not they are competing with others, whether they have advantages in business, whether they can use the offer of economic incentives as an advantage, etc. I stand behind what I have to say and explain my position often. You seem to just make statements and then avoid explaining. What would keep them pointing out to a potential investor that it would be in tax payers best interest for the council to approve TIF funds for improvements that would put property back on the tax rolls over others? How would pointing that out be an abuse of power? How is that not an unfair advantage for the City?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Jan 31, 2014 16:49:10 GMT -6
I stand behind what I have to say and explain my position often. You seem to just make statements and then avoid explaining. What would keep them pointing out to a potential investor that it would be in tax payers best interest for the council to approve TIF funds for improvements that would put property back on the tax rolls over others? How would pointing that out be an abuse of power? How is that not an unfair advantage for the City? I do try to explain things to you. Either you don't get it or you don't want to get it. I would agree it would be in the best tax payers interest for the council to approve TIF funds for property they own. But really how would that affect me if I was the potential buyer? As a potential buyer , I could give a sh!t less if it helps the taxpayer out or not. For the city to have an unfair advantage, the TIF's or other economic incentives would have to be structured that would allow preferential treatment for properties that the municipality is trying to sell. I don't believe it is written that way. Is it written anywhere that any property the city sells, automatically is guaranteed economic incentives and any property that is sold by private parties have to go thru an application process subject to approval?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 31, 2014 21:00:29 GMT -6
I would agree it would be in the best tax payers interest for the council to approve TIF funds for property they own. So, how would it be abuse of power for the City to tell that to a perspective buyer? That does give the City an advantage over others trying to sell. But really how would that affect me if I was the potential buyer? As a potential buyer , I could give a sh!t less if it helps the taxpayer out or not. For the city to have an unfair advantage, the TIF's or other economic incentives would have to be structured that would allow preferential treatment for properties that the municipality is trying to sell. I don't believe it is written that way. Is it written anywhere that any property the city sells, automatically is guaranteed economic incentives and any property that is sold by private parties have to go thru an application process subject to approval? TIF funds being spent have to be approved by the City Council; they control which properties get funds. That is the structure that allows preferential treatment for the properties that they want to sell. If you were the buyer and were really interested in DEF properties, but the city was pushing ABC with a more positive assurance of TIF fund approval because it helps tax payers, you might be more apt to care. Not wanting to get Verned might make you care even more. The conversation was not about the buyer though, it was about the City's advantages in competition with others in the real estate business. If you owned DEF properties and wanted to sell to the new business, but the City was telling the perspective buyer that it was in the best interest of tax payers to approve TIF funds for ABC properties, wouldn't you see that as an advantage for the City that you could not compete with? Of course it isn't written that any property is guaranteed incentives, just like there isn't anything written that says they can't give their properties preferential treatment.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 31, 2014 21:23:31 GMT -6
Private businesses invested in vacant commercial real estate have to abide by our strict vacant building ordinance, but our City doesn't. How is that not a big, unfair advantage?
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Feb 1, 2014 6:09:14 GMT -6
That would not seem like an advantage to the city at all. If an investor was looking to buy a downtown business, why would they want to purchase a building, that you suggest, that the city would allow to fall into a state of disrepair. Even if they did purchase from the city and paid to fix the damage, they would then own the building and be responsible if the building were to become vacant.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 1, 2014 7:44:39 GMT -6
That would not seem like an advantage to the city at all. If an investor was looking to buy a downtown business, why would they want to purchase a building, that you suggest, that the city would allow to fall into a state of disrepair. Even if they did purchase from the city and paid to fix the damage, they would then own the building and be responsible if the building were to become vacant. It is an advantage for the City because they are allowed to just sit on the property waiting until market conditions are more favorable without having to jump through all the hoops of the vacant building ordinance and without having to face the $750/ day fines. Then they can offer the buyer TIF funds to repair it if it is purchased. Even without City ownership, people now have to worry about being responsible for any building becoming vacant and facing the hoops and $750/day fines. I feel that the vacant building ordinance has been turning people away from property ownership here, that is why I have been speaking out against it.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Feb 1, 2014 8:10:41 GMT -6
That would not seem like an advantage to the city at all. If an investor was looking to buy a downtown business, why would they want to purchase a building, that you suggest, that the city would allow to fall into a state of disrepair. Even if they did purchase from the city and paid to fix the damage, they would then own the building and be responsible if the building were to become vacant. It is an advantage for the City because they are allowed to just sit on the property waiting until market conditions are more favorable without having to jump through all the hoops of the vacant building ordinance and without having to face the $750/ day fines. Then they can offer the buyer TIF funds to repair it if it is purchased. Even without City ownership, people now have to worry about being responsible for any building becoming vacant and facing the hoops and $750/day fines. I feel that the vacant building ordinance has been turning people away from property ownership here, that is why I have been speaking out against it. I could see if the city were keeping their properties in a substandard condition AND were fining private owners for the same violations that the city were committing then yes, that would be an unfair advantage. I haven't heard of the city fining anyone the $750 a day. Have they been fining anyone to your knowledge?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 1, 2014 8:45:54 GMT -6
I have heard that the ordinance has been pushed on others and they have been made to pay to have their building be inspected. Maybe just the threat of the $750/day fines is enough to convince people that they just need to dump their properties. I have sat in council meetings to hear our elected officials talk about other people's buildings being in deplorable condition, wide open, and how the City should do something about them.
|
|