Skyview Park Apartments become reality for PathStone (Rochester, Syracuse: credit, subsidized)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess when I said higher taxes caused by subsidizing EVERYTHING, I was wrong, but when you say it, you're right. OK
You said manufacturing left because of more people living off of the government. If you mean corporations needing tax breaks or incentives, among other forms, I think that would have more impact than those that get public assistance that may or may not stay on for a long period of time.
leadfoot is right though in terms of other measures that had an impact like pollution, as well as mechanization, NAFTA, etc. That is how production can be similar, but manufacturing employment peaked 42+ years ago in the US.
As for the actual development in this thread, I believe this is also a way to get a parcel on the town tax roll, by way of something in demand. It also is some form of a lifestyle center, which has been a way to bring back properties that were enclosed malls.
While you guys are both presenting legitimate points, there's one BIG point that you're both overlooking. Manufacturing didn't leave the US, strictly over high taxes. The US adopted draconian anti-pollution legislation, foolishly thinking that we could "save the planet" by eliminating the potential sources of pollution, especially air pollution, in the US.
Strangely enough, people still demanded consumer goods, so they had to be made SOMEWHERE.......somewhere that would ignore the pollution side effects. Well, enter China. They have made it abundantly clear that pollution is a secondary concern to them, and they're now eating our lunch, while the politicians here, are developing muscle spasms, from straining themselves to pat themselves on the back, for "eliminating pollution". Fact is, they didn't ELIMINATE it, they simply MOVED it....and as typical politicians, they're pushing the nonsensical story that high taxes caused the issue, as a diversion, rather than facing the truth.
Am I encouraging pollution? OF COURSE NOT! I'm simply saying that a more intelligent approach could have reduced pollution, AND kept jobs in the US. However, the "knee jerk" reaction, which was of course the cheapest option, was put into place, and here we are......depending on a foreign country, for far too many of our daily necessities.
Yes, I'm a small government, self sufficiency kind of person, so to me taxes, regulations, government are all rolled into the same category.
We DID make mistakes in the 50's, 60's. It was great to clean up the mess. Our lakes are clear again. They removed most of the "low hanging fruit", but the cost is very high going further, for little results, especially knowing that the earth has warmed before without human intervention.
As for the actual development in this thread, I believe this is also a way to get a parcel on the town tax roll, by way of something in demand. It also is some form of a lifestyle center, which has been a way to bring back properties that were enclosed malls.
I doubt that there will be very much taxes collected. This is a low income project. That's what Pathstone does. Also the community center wouldn't pay taxes. They would be wise to encourage at least SOME retail on that site. They not only pay property taxes, but sales taxes, wages, Social Security, etc. and now, there is a built in captive customer base.
Before the mall, there was a Kodak operation there
Yes, I'm a small government, self sufficiency kind of person, so to me taxes, regulations, government are all rolled into the same category.
We DID make mistakes in the 50's, 60's. It was great to clean up the mess. Our lakes are clear again. They removed most of the "low hanging fruit", but the cost is very high going further, for little results, especially knowing that the earth has warmed before without human intervention.
Yes, cleaning up our waterways was certainly worthwhile, as well as centralized to our hemisphere. However, the runaway air pollution that is generated by China, STILL negatively affects us. Just think how the tsunami of 10 years ago, swept debris out to sea, where it eventually reached our shores. Same with air pollution, as anything generated in China will eventually reach the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWRocks
I doubt that there will be very much taxes collected. This is a low income project. That's what Pathstone does. Also the community center wouldn't pay taxes. They would be wise to encourage at least SOME retail on that site. They not only pay property taxes, but sales taxes, wages, Social Security, etc. and now, there is a built in captive customer base.
Before the mall, there was a Kodak operation there
Understand your point, and I agree. With respect to the "pre mall days", the building was initially a Wegmans store, and a Topps discount department store, sharing a common building, before Wegmans purchased the former Ridgewood middle school from the Irondequoit School District, and built a new store there; Topps went out of business, and Kodak then leased the building for their 'Copy Products Division', for several years....
I doubt that there will be very much taxes collected. This is a low income project. That's what Pathstone does. Also the community center wouldn't pay taxes. They would be wise to encourage at least SOME retail on that site. They not only pay property taxes, but sales taxes, wages, Social Security, etc. and now, there is a built in captive customer base.
Before the mall, there was a Kodak operation there
You would get them through rents paid by residents/seniors and I wouldn’t be surprised if retail is a part of the plan in the future.
This appears to be more in line with usual senior based housing developments instead of the stereotypical low income housing “projectâ€.
Well, we will have to lower the national tax rate for operation in order to bring those jobs back. However, there have been a couple of job announcements recently and other companies have had openings that need to be filled.
If you will recall, the last President DID lower the federal tax rate, and it was very effective. Remember, the economy was doing very well until a few months ago
As for the actual development in this thread, I believe this is also a way to get a parcel on the town tax roll, by way of something in demand. It also is some form of a lifestyle center, which has been a way to bring back properties that were enclosed malls.
Other than the land itself, this project had very little to do with the building. There is a brand new 4 story building containing 84 units. 73 units went in the old "Sears" space, although it was totally gutted as they installed 3 courtyards in it.
BTW, $285,350 per unit is a "little" high, don't you think? Over $400/ sq ft
Rent for 1 br $653-$795
Rent for 2 br $930-$958
The rent doesn't come close to paying the landlords expenses, and I'm sure some get taxpayer funded subsidies, so I ask you, who is paying for this?
Other than the land itself, this project had very little to do with the building. There is a brand new 4 story building containing 84 units. 73 units went in the old "Sears" space, although it was totally gutted as they installed 3 courtyards in it.
BTW, $285,350 per unit is a "little" high, don't you think? Over $400/ sq ft
Rent for 1 br $653-$795
Rent for 2 br $930-$958
The rent doesn't come close to paying the landlords expenses, and I'm sure some get taxpayer funded subsidies, so I ask you, who is paying for this?
Even market rate and luxury housing developments get subsidies. So, that isn't anything unusual for developers to get that.
Those rents are actually on par with some market rate apartments in the area. So, this is why I put affordable in quotes, as that is relatively affordable, but not dirt cheap rental rates.
As for the other post, they are still higher than many developed nations. I'll stop there...
Those rents are actually on par with some market rate apartments in the area. So, this is why I put affordable in quotes, as that is relatively affordable, but not dirt cheap rental rates.
Market rate, or not, the rents don't come close to paying the $285,000 per unit cost. Who pays THAT?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
