....did the city dems give out a 100% tax exemption to GE?    Did I miss reading something in the news?

Assessment is $650 MILLION.


Yep, the dems in the say SCREW THE HOMEOWNERS!!!!!!!

Didn't hear anything about it but its probably true

Don't know if it's true or not.............but in either case, the dems campaign on GE......if it weren't for the dems....GE wouldn't be here....yes?

But don't forget.........it would be no different if the reps were in control and pulling the puppet strings!! the dems would be shut out and the 'friends and family club' would look different.

also remember that nys is as blue as blue can get...........so if the reps WERE in control....they'd get squat!!

there would never be a WORKING TOGETHER!!

Made one mistake in my post.   It's $65 Million , not $650, I can't correct the original post now   Apologies.



RAH RAH RAH says the cheerleader for the dems.

RAH RAH RAH says the cheerleader as the tax exempt GE lavishes money on his buddy dems in the city and as his buddy dems crush the homeowners in the city.


Notice the Tax ID for Schenectady city






Notice the Tax ID for Schenectady city






And here are three years of the city's final assessment roll.   Notice when they did pay taxes -- in 2011.

And what happened in 201 and 2013.











Once again, Christine and Mike have found and provided EVIDENCE of how the dems in the city/town/county/plex are SCREWING THE TAXPAYERS!!!!!   Nothing but imposing more crushing financial blows to the homeowners.

Waiting for the dem supporter/s to provide EVIDENCE of anything good that the dem team have done for the taxpayers/homeowners.   TOTAL SILENCE


Schenectady city residents need to take things like this to the council meetings.  This needs to get out in time for elections, residents need to know how the city is failing so that they can elect people who will represent them instead of the rich political cronies.

maybe they have a hidden account for the Erin Brochovich cancer lawsuit

The city lowered the assessed value from 100 million to 77 million, then gave them a 65 million exemption.

Rotterdam just gave them the exemption for the full 132 million.

Talk about entitlements.

Quoted from Libertarian4life

The city lowered the assessed value from 100 million to 77 million, then gave them a 65 million exemption.

Rotterdam just gave them the exemption for the full 132 million.

Talk about entitlements.

         I think the Town and City agreed to PILOTs for GE for a 10 yr. period.  If you google GE Assessments, I think you will find some articles on these agreements.  Not sure if a PILOT shows up as a tax payment even if the payment is equivalent to the tax.

Quoted from AVON

         I think the Town and City agreed to PILOTs for GE for a 10 yr. period.  If you google GE Assessments, I think you will find some articles on these agreements.  Not sure if a PILOT shows up as a tax payment even if the payment is equivalent to the tax.

You may be correct....but how do they find out?

Wouldn't it be nice if the financially struggling homeowners, who, in the city have an average HOUSEHOLD income of under $40,000 (that means the total income of all workers in a family, i.e., dad words, mom works, the teen has a part time job and that equals that $40,000) could be given a PILOT.  

Homeowners could, instead of paying $6,000 roughly on their home (which has a value of $100,000 or less), pay a PILOT of $1,500.  

Now wouldn't that be nice.


But instead, the DEMS choose to exempt millionaires and billionaires from paying their full taxes which they more can afford, and that is AFTER they get taxpayer dollars for lavish new buildings, extravagant renovations, etc.   And then, like one local business guy who gets a brand spanking new building just a couple 10ths of a mile from his old place, fails to pay taxes on his old place!   For SHAME ON THE DEMS IN THE CITY AND COUNTY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoted from bumblethru

You may be correct....but how do they find out?

Here is a link to an article that explains what the content of the agreement was:
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/GE-to-pay-in-lieu-of-taxes-3649609.php

The specifics of the agreement would have to be through a FOIL I would imagine.

Quoted from AVON

Here is a link to an article that explains what the content of the agreement was:
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/GE-to-pay-in-lieu-of-taxes-3649609.php

The specifics of the agreement would have to be through a FOIL I would imagine.

Based on the approximate combined school, county, and local taxes, that's probably less than half of what they would have otherwise paid over the 10 years based on CURRENT tax rates.  The dems have essentially prevented GE from being affected by ANY AND ALL tax increase that they are going to shove down the throats of the average financially struggling homeowners.

Not to mention, what I believe is the case, IF GE adds buidlings, etc on the property, it prevents any increase to the assessment resulting from new buildings or other property improvements that would otherwise result in an assessment increase.   But the poor schmuck homeowners, they just merely redo their bathroom and assessment can get jacked up.

I don't see where they should get PILOT?

http://www.tax.ny.gov/research/property/assess/manuals/vol4/pt1/sec4_02/sec404_1.htm

IS GE A PERMANENT IDA?

This report supplies context for the current policy discussion on Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs),
details major process and accountability issues, describes efforts by the Offi ce of the State Comptroller
(OSC) to improve reporting quality and provides a summary of statistical and fi nancial information from
2004 IDA annual reports.
In 1969, legislation was enacted providing for the creation of IDAs to facilitate economic development
in specifi c localities, and delineating their powers and status as public benefi t corporations. The number
of IDAs has fl uctuated over time, and presently there are 115 active IDAs, with one in each of the State’s
counties, as well as a number of cities, towns and villages.
To improve economic conditions in their respective areas, IDAs generally attempt to attract, retain and
expand businesses within their jurisdictions through the provision of fi nancial incentives to private entities.
IDAs are legally empowered to buy, sell or lease property and to provide tax exempt fi nancing for approved
projects. Real property owned or controlled by IDAs is exempt from property and mortgage recording
taxes, and the value of these exemptions can be passed through to assisted businesses. Moreover, purchases
related to IDA projects can be exempt from State and local sales taxes.
While IDA properties are tax exempt, businesses occupying IDA-owned properties typically make paymentsin-lieu-of-taxes (PILOTs) that are shared with the affected local tax jurisdictions (i.e., local governments)
within their area.
Each IDA is legally required to annually submit a fi nancial statement to OSC that includes data related to
the number of jobs created or retained and amount of all tax exemptions provided. These reports must
also be fi led with the Department of Economic Development (DED) and the governing body of the
sponsoring municipality.
Unfortunately, a number of studies have shown that inconsistent and inaccurate reporting has limited
the utility of the data available through these annual reports. For example, nearly 3,500 projects receive
IDA-related benefi ts, but unfortunately, many are not providing IDAs with the data they need to complete
their State reporting requirements. To address this problem, OSC initiated several measures designed to
improve the quality of the reports submitted by IDAs. Specifi cally, OSC sent out a description of common
reporting errors, as well as a report to each IDA of where problems had been found in its previous year’s
submission. Additionally, OSC enhanced its review procedures, improved its audit presence and increased
the amount of training it provided to IDAs.
As a result of these oversight and training efforts, the completeness and consistency of IDA reporting for
2004 showed a marked improvement over previous years. For example, for 2002, IDAs reported current
job data for only 58 percent of their projects; this has been increased to 88 percent in reports for 2004.
Nonetheless, of the 3,474 projects reported in 2004, 521 (15 percent) did not provide complete job data.
Thus, there is still a need for more complete and accurate reporting.
The overall effectiveness of IDA programs has been the subject of a number of studies, reports and audits.
Despite the enactment of reforms in the late 1980s and early 1990s, issues regarding IDA operations,
accountability and transparency persist. In addition, a number of policy concerns have been raised. Following
is a summary of these major issues:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY