E.L. City Council expected to pass many budget cuts

OK, Ted —let’s see: “more significant reductions”? Could that include a decision to not ever build the so-called City Center II parking garage in light of the fact that the city sure doesn’t need another parking ramp? That $30m “reduction” should be made permanent, not simply “deferred” for a year.

There’s simply no way that parking revenue from that ramp will ever pay those construction costs (which doesn’t include the $5.5m already spent for “land acquisition”). The city IS facing some harsh realities —but the one that you refuse to recognize is that City Center II will never be built as proposed.

Does Phil Bellfy have a real job? Still spewing the same garbage. City Center II has nothing whatsoever to do with the city’s current budget. Stopping it won’t help. Continuing it won’t hurt. Phil would tell you the sky was pink if it would help him in his personal crusade to kill this project. And why is that? Honestly, I have no idea. I guess he prefers those ugly buildings across from campus that are there now.

QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM ARTICLE:

The city also will remove money allocated for City Center II from the Downtown Development Authority, Capital Improvement and Automobile Parking funds because the project has not started. Those changes will reduce those authorities’ budgets by a combined $30.8 million.

THAT CERTAINLY COULD NOT BE ANY CLEARER. NOW, HOW CAN ONE SAY THAT TAXPAYER MONEY IS NOT BEING USED FOR CITY CENTER II and IGNORE THE IMPACT ON THE BUDGET CRISIS?

You need to learn how to read a balance sheet…$30m in from bond sale and $30m out for infrastructure improvements tied to CC2. No General Fund Money Is Used.

General Obligation Bonds are PUBLIC DEBT, and they are backed by the full faith and credit of the City TO RAISE PROPERTY TAXES TO REPAY THE BONDS. No general fund money is being used? That’s right, because there is NONE to use! So they issue bonds, public debt, that MUST be paid back. Money does not grow on trees. Either you have it or you borrow it. In this case, the money is borrowed up front, securitized as bonds, and HOPEFULLY will be paid back with property tax revenue from the project itself, essentially earmarking and diverting that tax revenue that would have otherwise gone into the general fund. This is the most reckless, irresponsible balance sheet ever, a true bailout for the crony developer, with kickbacks and payouts for those who forced this debt on the citizens. By the time anyone realizes the financial harm that has been caused to the citizens, fat cats like Vic Loomis and Ted Staton will be sipping mai tais on some island, laughing at the sham they got away with, thanks to a submissive media and apathetic citizenry.

Just because the bonds are backed by “the full faith and credit” of the city (which has a AA bond rating by the way) doesn’t mean your tax payments are going to cover that debt. Hasn’t happened on a dozen other bonds the city is paying on. They are being paid by tax capture and parking revenue. And it works; the general fund has not had to cough up payments for these bonds and no increase in taxes has been proposed to cover those dozen bonds. You can’t point to one instance in thirty years of funding public projects in this fashion, Hans. Give it up already!

OK —let’s see if we can all like adults, here. I am not at all anti-development. Please recall that I was one of three people who took the time to offer alternatives to the current (amended) plan.

I walk by those empty buildings every day and I am literally sickened by the piles of barf that line those sidewalks. I think I’m right up there with Scott Chappelle (and Ugh?) who would love to see that area developed.

But, yes, the taxpayers are at risk. The Plante Moran checklist (and I’m not quoting directly, here) says that without a proper market analysis to insure teh viability of the project, the whole thing is in jeopardy of falling apart —and, yes, if that happens, taxpayers will be left holding the bag.

Finally, assuming Strathmore really has lined up tenants for Building B, let him renovate the existing building on Abott & GR, or, better yet, develop the extensive property he already owns to service his prospective tenants, be they a hotel an fancy restaurant, of someone who needs some office space “downtown.”

Bottom line: if private developers want to develop their land —then more power to them. But the city should not put taxpayers at risk by becoming an integral part of that private development.

$30 Million Dollar crony fluff fund!

QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:

The city also will remove money allocated for City Center II from the Downtown Development Authority, Capital Improvement and Automobile Parking funds because the project has not started. Those changes will reduce those authorities’ budgets by a combined $30.8 million.

Plante Moran, a financial consulting firm who coincidentally has a sweet gig auditing the books for the City, warned in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that the City and the Developer failed to consider the risks involved in this shady project, long before the onset of the recession. Now, Staton and Loomis will say anything to fatten the pockets of Strathmore. There is no doubt that they are getting a cut of green in return!

Ted Staton and Vic Loomis assert that selling bonds creates income.
That is the same distorted logic that led Enron to classify their debts as assets. Bonds are public debt; there is huge risk involved.

If City Center II made any sense,
from a free market perspective,
then it would not rely so much on
public funding.

Get your facts straight City Manager Ted Staton and Mayor Vic Loomis. Bonds are a public debt classifed as LONG TERM LIABILITY on the balance sheet. Money does not grow on trees; you cannot get something for nothing! Either you have the money for your crony Strathmore bailout or you have to BORROW it!