“This is sprawl, that’s all this is,” said Frank Montecalvo of Comenale Crescent in New York Mills, some of which is in New Hartford. “We’re financing sprawl.” . . .
But that view is not shared by town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski, who said many of the concerns expressed Monday were misplaced. . . .
“This is a project that’s not going to cost the taxpayers, and they’ll receive the benefit,” he said.U Betcha this is sprawl and the Town Supervisor is spouting nonsense. Taxpayers WILL pay because PILOTs and FILM are monies that belong to the taxpayers. As noted here last week . . .
Payments In Lieu of Taxes that go to pay for a road that is ONLY needed by the Business Park are payments that are NOT available to pay for the demand on police and fire protection that the project will generate. . . . Fees in Lieu of Mitigation collected from developers of other projects are Town funds intended to be used to mitigate the impacts of those other projects. Guess who winds up either paying to mitigate the impacts of the other projects or tolerating the environmental degradation of the other projects?The New Hartford Business Park started out in 1999 as an industrial park - a place for manufacturing. People regionally felt that it would be worth the investment because of the shortage of building sites that meet the specifications for modern manufacturing plants. Instead the people only got another office park -- something not in short supply -- which only entices economic activity to move from one part of this region of declining population to another.
When a declining population is encouraged through taxpayer subsidies and special benefits to spread itself over twice the geographic area, it makes the cost of supplying municipal services to that population skyrocket. That is why taxes must go up in both Utica and New Hartford.
Developers and Town officials have benefited from New Hartford's pro-sprawl policies. The taxpayers of New Hartford and of neighboring communities losing economic activity to New Hartford have lost. These policies hurt the average taxpayer. They must end.
10 comments:
Why in Gods name are they extending Clinton Street if they are gonna build the on/off from Rt. 840?
Clinton Street is the best solution I believe. I cant see the need to do both.
Maybe they can rename that part of the new Clinton Street, Larry Adler Way??
There are a couple of problems that may be present in your analysis. What is the term of the Pilot? And, what % of full taxation is granted under the Pilot? Plus, the only other business park with vacant sites I'm aware of is at the old county airport which is even more geographically spread. But, when you look at the relatively short distances of "sprawl" here, it's not much of a sprawl. We must generate good modern sites to attract business and accomomidate expansions. The cities offer none.
So the the access ramps and Clinton St are not going to cost the taxpayers a dime..hmmm maybe if there was no PILOT it wouldn't. Maybe if they were fully taxed would have been better. This project does nothing for me the taxpayer in NH but raise my taxes to cover the rest of the costs of services. Next tax period I will stop at Butler Hall and pay my PILOT or what I feel the Town services are worth. It costs me to use the playground, nearly doubled fees to use the rec center, fees to use the parks. All while developers come into the town make millions on their properties and leave the town holding the bag for water run offs,sewer and road issues. NO MORE PILOTS..give the working taxpayers in this town a break!! Say no to anymore commercial development until the taxpayers are considered first.
Payments in liu of taxes or PILOTS as they are called became, in effect, part of the national landscape by congressional tax law many decades ago. If a Pilot is correctly set up it brings revenue to a municipality based on a % of what the normal tax load will be. Formulas, if correctly done prevent losing propositions as they relate to a tax base and the expenses of a project. The PILOTs also disappear over a set period of time and the property becomes fully taxed. One must carefully study how particular PILOTs are structured to understand whether or not they provide benefit. And, certain projects like retail commercial should never be PILOTed since they only create secondary jobs.
The PILOT in this case was sold as saving jobs from moving out of town. Who said and where is the proof that the Hartford would move. The town bit on that BS. In addition to the 45% tax increase, and all the extra fees to use town services, where did this benefit the real taxpayer, especially those who live in the Village of NH. What services does the town provide to them? What is going to happen when many of the commercial businesses in the Town look for a reduction in taxes based on these recent agreements and threaten to bring the town to court. If it was anything like the mid 80's (and now a renegotiated settlement on Preswick assessment)all that money had to be repaid including school taxes because it was in the best interest of the town to settle on a negotiated reduction. Where are they going to get the money to fight this off if it occurs. Stand-by and hang on to your wallets...and by the way who assessed the property at Preswick. Who came up with a cost that now can be reduced by millions?? This is all too complex for the nice guy neighbor who wants to run the Town business. Far over some peoples abilities.
The pilot's terms that I remember are that the pilot requires reduced payments from normal taxes for a period of time, that the payments will be used to pay for the roads required by the business park, and that they are supporting development on a greenfield.
The Utica Business Park is half empty while while NH/the school district/the County subsidize greenfield development. Downtown Utica is half empty while NH/the school district/the County subsidize greenfield development. The taxing authorities subsidized The Hartford at its old location, and when that pilot ran out are now subsidizing the new location -- while the old location is now taken over by a completely tax exempt entity.
We are a region of Declining population, but we keep spreading out to greenfields to occupy more space. That makes municipal services more expensive for everyone.
PILOTs should be reserved to neutralize the greater expense of reusing Brownfields, because reuse is in the Public's interest. Subsidies for greenfield development are merely gifts to private businesses.
Strike,
McCraith Beverages in New York Mills has had multiple PILOTS from the Town of New Hartford. Now, I bet they will be going in for a reduced assessment? And for what?
McCraith like so many others have bled the system dry and our politicians continue to make decent town residents subsidize these follies...
The Utica park has some empty buildings that are old in acertain sense. And, if you add the square footage, the amount is small considering what we have to attract to build this awful local economy. Our population will contunue to decline if we do not attract industry. If one wants to accept decline and plan for a slow death, nothing we do really matters;we will ultimately wither away. In answer to the other anonymous point. PILOTS cannot be used as legal arguements for property tax reductions. They are separate instruments that relate to the bond financing not the value of the property. In fact, they enhance the value of the property.
We really have to rethink the entire concept that government should be responsible for "creating jobs." Rather, the presence, absence, increase or decline in jobs -- or population for that matter -- should be regarded more as a barometer of how well government operates rather than an objective in itself.
If government is small, efficient, regulates enough to protect citizens and leverage private efforts through setting standards -- but not so much to place our employers at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace -- jobs will grow. If jobs are not growing, then government is taking or regulating too much.
Tax breaks and other incentives for development should be reserved only for situations where the public (and not the developer) is benefited -- such as to remove the disadvantages associated with Brownfields.
Development on brownfields instead of greenfields cuts down on sprawl, which keeps people and businesses closer together, which allows services to be delivered more efficiently, which helps keep taxes low.
The government gains or loses private sector jobs through the atmosphere it creates for investment and confidence.In our case we feature high taxes, overspending, unimpressive leadership and very old thinking. Top that off with political greed and corruption and you end up right where we are- in decline.
Post a Comment