To the editor:
Being from New Jersey, I am adjusted to reading of strange occurrences in town hall finances. That said, this paper, on Jan. 4, tells us the town fathers have given preliminary approval to 10 payments of $28,000 each as an “incentive” to the developers of the seven-story building at Ninth and New Hampshire.
As the “$10 million” building is up, and looks ready for occupancy, I do not see where the incentive applies. Will they demolish it if they do not receive the money? By the developers’ admission, they did not even ask for the money until AFTER the beginning of construction!
To claim that this is for “everything from street lights to sidewalks” is insulting to the taxpayers’ intelligence. Do they really expect us to believe that the developers would not put things like new lights and sidewalks in their plans? If the construction was estimated at that $10 million, would you like us to believe that this $280K over 10 years would have changed their minds?
Development is good, but times are tough, and giving away taxpayer money after the fact is certainly not businesslike
Comments
justforfun 1 year, 4 months ago
Eh Millard get used to it! That's how we roll in Law, Ks spend spend spend with no regard to the tax payers.
Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 4 months ago
Cronyism runs this town. The Compton/Fritzel machine continues to deprive others of opportunity through their monopoly on development in town and tax $$ skim. And with lapdogs like Cromwell in City Government be assured that the gravy train will keep on rollin'. It may be more like Jersey here than you think.
sunflower-voter 1 year, 4 months ago
+100
jafs 1 year, 4 months ago
We all got to vote on the library expansion.
Did we get that chance with this project?
And, if there's so much opposition to the library, and the T, why didn't people just vote against those when they had the chance? Both were on the ballot, and both won the majority of those who voted.
jafs 1 year, 4 months ago
What's your point?
Were you prevented from voting on either of those initiatives? I voted on both of them.
Renaissance 1 year, 4 months ago
perhaps falsehopenochange is a convicted felon.
jafs 1 year, 4 months ago
I had never thought of that.
Perhaps you're right.
justforfun 1 year, 4 months ago
Yes I was! I live in Dg county just out side the city limit. I own property in town but don't get to vote for or against these type of things. Just have to go with what the city folk vote on. Woulden't it make sense to be able to vote on things that will affect my tax base?
jafs 1 year, 4 months ago
Then you should lobby our elected officials to make that change.
But, it's quite common, as I understand it, for city ballot initiatives to be voted on by city residents, rather than everybody who owns property in the city.
skinny 1 year, 4 months ago
Yup, this is just plain crazy. The City of Lawrence needs a change of Government. Time for a voted in city Commission and fire the city manager and Mayor!
JackMcKee 1 year, 4 months ago
Well they had to do something to make up for the fact that the development didn't get reserved parking spots in the garage.
patkindle 1 year, 4 months ago
well duh, and double duh!!!
The "cronyism" of the 1%'ers that use the Library and the T is greed bar none.
i believe the 1%ers got off thier butts, went to the polls and out voted the others..
what happened to you and the rest of the 99%ers?
it is hard to whine, when you simply get out voted because you were too lazy to go to the polls
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 4 months ago
I'd still like to know who's going to pick up the tab for repairing the streets that were damaged during construction.
Ron Holzwarth 1 year, 4 months ago
The taxpayers.
Ragingbear 1 year, 4 months ago
Take a look at the two private golf courses that are funded almost entirely by the city.
Ron Holzwarth 1 year, 4 months ago
We needed the green space.
merrill 1 year, 4 months ago
Is it the taxpayers responsibility to guarantee the real estate industry and developers a nice tidy profit on their speculation and/or risky investments? Absolutely not!
Always let the voters decide how reckless or not we wish to be.
I believe all incentives to sell and/or develop property should come from those wanting to profit from their endeavors:
Never from the taxpayers! Always let the voters decide how reckless or not we wish to be. Why? Because this type of local big government socialism does not benefit the lions share of the population. We are not necessarily the profiteers.
Always let the voters decide how reckless or not we wish to be.
Voters and taxpayers are the primary stakeholders no matter what. That's right without we taxpayers there could be no tax dollar mooching.
What makes we voting taxpayers the primary stakeholders in any new development or construction project whether it be private or local government? Each one of us spend thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars in this community without which Lawrence would be nothing. Yet we are cast aside under the facade that none of this is any of our business.
Always let the voters decide how reckless or not we wish to be.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.