On the January 28 edition of the Talk of the Sound Radio Show, outgoing IDA member Lloyd Robinson was offered the perfect platform to showcase just how the City of New Rochelle has benefitted from the incentives handed out to the the developers of New Roc, the Avalon(s) and Trump buildings. Sadly enough, Mr. Robinson was either ill-prepared or clueless in his ability to quote any hard facts or figures that would support the pipe dream of how we have enriched ourselves by the decisions made by the IDA.
Considering the scrutiny and criticism the IDA has been receiving from citizens and the Office of the State Comptroller, this would have been a good time to quote a few figures. Unfortunately, as you listen to the interview, the phrase ” like pulling teeth” comes to mind. Aside from not really knowing how long he (Mr. Robinson) served on the IDA board, the best he could come up with was the fact that if you’re crossing the Throgs Neck Bridge, you can actually see the buildings. That in itself is great news if you’re lost in the Bronx and need some sort of landmark to help you get back to New Rochelle (in the unlikely event all of the road signs mysteriously disappear that is).
Anyhow, what residents are asking for is some sort of proof that there really is a “net benefit” to the public subsidy and for all intents and purposes, venture capital provided by the people who pay taxes in this city. In a recent op-ed piece by TOS contributor Anthony Galletta, Anthony took the time to highlight some of the numbers that Mr. Robinson failed to supply. It ain’t good. For me, a net benefit would be the difference between the value the taxpayer receives and the cost incurred (with the value part being the higher number). So, we’ve received shiny new buildings you can see from the bridge, buildings that haven’t delivered on the promises of jobs or sales tax revenues. We lose millions and millions of dollars in revenue through tax abatements AND incur costs through fire and police support services as (I’ve been told Avalon has the highest number of fire response calls in the city, we’re providing education for more than three times the number of children projected, and for all that we get, uh, we receive, no wait, I mean we’ve been enriched by,…. I’ll have to get back to you after I talk to Lloyd.
The way I see it, welcoming developers to town would be good if we had the ability to claw back money when the project doesn’t deliver as promised. Through taxpayer money, we pave the way for them to jump in and build, however we shouldn’t be responsible for maintaining the properties after completion. That isn’t the business of the taxpayer, unless we’re talking public housing. I would venture to say we would have saved tens of millions if we just let the vacant lots lay fallow, planted a commmunity garden, built a public plaza, or, in hindsight, paved over for more parking.
There are some on city council who take a condecending view of anyone who brings this subject up by pointing out these deals made in the past and people should get over it. That would be fine if we didn’t have to watch history being replayed as the city bends over for Cappelli or Forest City to offer the same sweetheart dealings again without any provision for recouping losses incurred by projects failing to deliver as promised. When we have 200 more kids in Echo Bay who’s going to build the school space to educate them. Forest City? Wrong. YOU are.
There has been some success. The old Bakers Pride building could be considered a model, but that only underscores the IDA’s shortcomings. Perhaps they should stick to small scale projects. You could say they just don’t have the business savvy or legal prowess to negotiate with multi billion corporations. Just take a look around. Hell bent on development and suffering from an edifice complex yet somehow, the powers in charge can’t seem to be able to run a bathroom (as in the train station). At one point, as the train station changed hands to private and then city ownership, a deed covenant requiring the maintenance and upkeep of the restrooms was provided for. What happened to that? Sadly, just another case of the failing to comply with a deed requirement. Makes you wonder, don’t it?