It is fact that some get waaaay behind on their taxes without suffering any ill effects, and others do not have to pay taxes, and still others not only do not have to pay but business owners have to pay for them to the point where they get behind and get foreclosed on, so yes, I can see that it does matter if you get on the wrong side of these people or not.
It's just a FACT, a TRUTH about Schenectady that long time TAXPAYING BUSINESSES which stabilize and INCREASE THE TAX BASE are being FORCED to pay the taxes of the millionaire political cronies of the dem leadership. Taxes are almost the highest in the whole dang country, and so the businesses cannot afford it and they close, just like Mortettes, Rudnicks, Mr James, or they leave the city like the new car dealerships have gone to other places.
If this is a foreclosure, it's no difference than what is happening to the homeowners.
Taxpaying businesses in the city are foreclosed - causes a reduction in the city's tax base
Taxpaying businesses in the city close because they cannot compete against the tax exempt millionaires -- causes more reduction in the city's tax base
Homeowners in the city are foreclosed - causes a reduction in the city's tax base.
Homeowners in the city cannot afford the taxes and decide to put their houses up for sale and flee the city - houses don't sell, the houses remain vacant, and vacant houses around you cause everyone's property values to drop - this causes more reduction in the city's tax base.
Homeowners can't afford to pay the taxes of the millionaire political cronies of the dem leadership, they up and leave, abandon their homes -- this causes more reduction of the city's tax base.
Look around the city - nice homes in nice neighborhoods up for sale, no takers, people are not willing to buy homes in the city Longtime TAXPAYING BUSINESSES closing. Blight spreading like wildfire throughout the city's neighborhoods - and all the dem leadership can do is lavish the best on their rich political cronies and ignore the people and their neighborhoods.
Dems are quickly creating a ghost town
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
Good editorial in the Gazette today (6/14) talking about how this Metroplex "working together" has ruined a buiding that has not had ANY flooding it's 150 in existence, and look how plex and the dems want to hurry and take more money from the taxpayers to give it to this apartment project
FOR SHAME ON THE CITY AND THE DEM LEADERSHIP And I DEFY ANYONE who says taking taxpayer money to allow another long time taxpaying property to be damaged is a good investment of taxpayer money in the name of renaissance. Still for some weird unknown reason, those who cheer for these projects REFUSE to state what the homeowners, the taxpayers, and the neighborhoods are getting in return for their "investment" (theft of their money by the city leaders)
Quoted Text
If city officials and developers of the second phase of the Maddalone/Rosenstein development on Lower Union Street in Schenectady continue to keep their heads in the sand over drainage problems caused by the development, they're likely to get a mouthful of wet sand.
Given the obvious history of drainage problems at the project, it's hard to believe the Schenectady Metroplex Development Authority continues to grant approvals for the development while the issues go largely unresolved.
Harleysville Preferred Insurance Co. — the insurance company for developers Christopher Maddalone and Charles Rosenstein — reviewed a claim by the owner of the Union Inn that the project had created a situation that resulted in mud and water flowing into her business' basement.
The flooding ultimately forced the owner to close her business earlier this month. The 147-year-old building had never had flooding in the basement during its entire existence until the last year or so.
After conducting its investigation, the insurance company last summer said its client was responsible for the flooding, sending a letter to the developers declaring that a “change in topography/landscape has caused an increased amount of water runoff to occur."
The company in the same letter chastised the developers for not addressing the problem. The insurance company went so far as to recommend they install a catch basin to redirect runoff and it threatened not to cover any more flood damage if its recommendations for solutions went unheeded.
This was coming from a company that has to pay when its clients get sued. And in this case, the insurance company was protecting its own hide because it determined for itself that its client was liable.
The developers did tear down a building at the corner of Barrett and Union streets, right near the Union Inn, to make room for their project. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. But given that the only variable in the last century-and-a-half is the new development, wouldn't it be reasonable to look at that as a potential cause?
Even if the city and the developers didn't believe the assessment by the insurance company, it's evident the flooding was unusual and that something must have triggered it.
Yet on Wednesday, the Metroplex Authority approved a $90,000 grant for facade improvements. That comes on top of other support it has provided. Does it not see the potential for problems related to the drainage in the area?
Certainly, the city could use more upscale housing and retail space, and it appears to be in high demand. And a project of this magnitude could be a catalyst for more positive changes in the area. The quarrel isn't with the project or the developer. It's with this pesky, unresolved drainage issue.
But at what cost is all that good investment downtown coming? If the flooding issue is not addressed, and other properties are damaged, the developer and the city could be put at risk from more litigation, which could derail or delay this and other projects.
Before this goes any further, the city or the state should conduct a thorough investigation of the cause of this flooding and recommend potential solutions. If it turns out the project really wasn't at fault, then everyone's consciences are clear. Maybe there was indeed another cause of the Union Inn flooding that had nothing to do with the project. Maybe the insurance company's assessment was wrong.
But if the city finds the project is responsible and the developer again refuses to take responsibility, then the city needs to put a halt to the project until the problems are fixed.
Keeping their heads in the sand will only keep the right thing from being done.
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
Logged
