See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Seuferling/KU Endowment is beyond shady and apparently they are liars as well. What is in this agreement that caused you decide not to release the document?
Schumm, you should release the exhibits and the KU documents weeks before a vote is taken. The public deserves time to review and then make comment. To release "many of those exhibits to be completed by the time the city approves the document on second reading." is a disservice and unethical.
The price tag for the public goes continually higher, and "deal" we are receiving gets continually worse by the day.
Does the Public Records Act apply to KU Endowment?
Not exactly. K.Richards is absolutely right. All documents need to be released weeks before a vote is taken. Schumm is merely trying to placate us in putting a little lipstick on the pig.
"Those costs are not included in the city’s $25 million price tag for the project. "
And it starts before they even sign the paperwork. Why is it I have this feeling this won't be the last time we read this words if this thing moves forward ??
I am surprised that Mr. Schumm is demanding these agreements, but also agree that more time is needed to be able to read them. Plus, the City has apparently not made full disclosure of their part yet. Slow down !!!
Put it to a city-wide vote.
If it goes to a vote, you get to vote, too, and you can base that vote on whatever information turns your crank.
Make Fritzel pay his back taxes of 3 point some odd million first.
So can anyone avoid paying property taxes on their homes or businesses until they sell, or is that a special privilege reserved for special folks? If so, I'm sure every person in Kansas whose home has sat on the market for moths will be relieved to know they don't have to pay property tax until the home is sold.
I believe that's a policy specific to Junction City. I'd hope that Lawrence wouldn't be so stupid to have something like that in place. Or they'd at least let the developer re-zone the property if that's what will sell. Of course we're not the most intelligent when it comes to building more housing than we need.
It would suprise you if you knew who was in the investment group.
The more and more I read this my concern is this infrastructure. It seem like Lawrence could fall victim to the Fritzels the way Junction City did. Since this is a no bid I bet he charges the city an extra 2-4 million for infrastructure compared to a bid process and then the great deal becomes more of a rip off Nd the rec center has to be downside to pay for the cot over runs. I bet Junction City felt like the houses Fritzels built were gonna be a good deal as well
That's cost over runs sorry about that
If the government is paying for your house, then yeah. They should.
A sale item is only a good deal if you were going to buy it anyway. In this case the city is being convinced of something it had not previously determined we needed. Regardless of the hard sell this doesn't fit into the city plans. This impromptu long-term planning needs to stop.
And don't forget the annual cost overruns on operating costs. I seem to remember that it will be about a million a year to run, and the sales tax revenue will be $350,000 short.
If there isn't something noxious in the KUEA-Fritzel agreement, it would have already been released.
I hope the commissioners would start to understand this. This thing needs to be examined and discussed in the community before any so-called second-reading of the ordinance.
The car analogy I was thinking of goes something like this. A family has saved to buy a new car and they decide to treat themselves to a more expensive car. The car is priced at $25,000, but the seller is adamant that it's true value is at least $35,000. After several days of negotiation the buyer decides to negotiate a deal that he feels will benefit everyone. The seller agrees to pay $30,000 cash for the car and the seller for his part gets full use of the car on weekends. It's no wonder Fritzel loves Lawrence, our city leaders have no negotiating skills. When the city is putting so much money into developing his land we should have more negotiating room to demand that the needed land and much of the building cost be paid for by the developer, not the city. Let me put it this way, when you took your wife out for Valentine's Day did you ask her to pay for it? No, because it's not really a gift when the recipient has to pay for it.
i might be more comfortable if the whole deal wasn't so confusing, expensive and how elected and appointed government officials have been pushing so hard for this thing to happen.
i guess we're supposed to turn a blind eye. the library boondoggle is hard enough to stomach.
I can remember my father telling me about the real estate deals that he made years ago in several different cities. In one he donated 5 of his 20 acres so the city could have a place to build a water tower and in exchange the city brought in the roads and sewers and changed his zoning to allow a mixed us of commercial and residential development. In another he proposed that he'd give the city 10 acres for soccer and baseball fields in exchange for a change in zoning from agricultural to residential so he could build houses on the remaining 40 acres. In another the city came to him with a proposal to build a distribution center on his land. The city wanted to increase their tax base and add jobs, so they built the roads, sewers, and put in the necessary street lights to bring the business there. In exchange we agreed to sell the land to a large corporation at cost, with the benefit to us being that the rest of our land was now ready for development as the city paid the cost of the needed infrastructure. All of these deals benefited both the city and the developer. In this current deal the benefit is almost entirely with the developer. If Fritzel wanted to, or if the city had any negotiating skills, he could give us the land, built the recreation center, and give both as a gift to the city. In exchange, we would bring in the streets, sewers, and other utilities, pay for the maintenance of the recreation center, and he'd still make a handsome profit when he sells or rents the remainder of the property we paid to develop.
"The agreement lists 11 exhibits that are a part of the development agreement, but 10 of the 11 exhibits were left blank with the understanding that they would be filled in later. Schumm has said he expects many of those exhibits to be completed by the time the city approves the document on second reading. "
Why in the world is the city even thinking about giving first approval to a scheme that has blanks? My folks taught me to NEVER sign off on anything with a blank on it.
"Fritzel told the Journal-World in January that he would make the agreements public once they were finalized, but when contacted Monday, he declined to do so."
Another Fritzel lie. Yet the CC is still hell bent on pushing this through. Can it get any dirtier?
By CC do you mean City Commission or Chamber of Commerce? Never mind, they're nearly identical.
Mayor Schumm, please table this issue while we wait for the details to be made public, it is worrisome that you and the other commissioners will vote to approve a project when you admit you don't know all the relevant information. why in the world would you have a vote to approve at this time before even knowing exactly what you are voting on.
OMG. Seriously? 11 pages with 10 blank; yes we'll give you the details - wait, no we won't. I can't believe that you aren't setting this completely aside and getting on with honest and up front business deals.
How does this help the city? Will it be something Joe Average can use? I am in shock that the commission would even be willing to do the ordinance on this.
Pig lipstick - couldn't have said it better.
If this goes further, not one of the current commissioners who consider passing this should be re-elected.
This is becoming the new South Lawrence Trafficway...
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·