Last Rites for The Spalding Building
From Atlantic Yards Report comes the sad news that the Spalding Building at 24 6th Avenue is being prepped to meet its maker. Another clear example of an architectural eyesore that needed to be purged from the blighted neighborhood. Not. Ratner purchased the building for $2,200,000 in August 2009. As far as we can figure…
From Atlantic Yards Report comes the sad news that the Spalding Building at 24 6th Avenue is being prepped to meet its maker. Another clear example of an architectural eyesore that needed to be purged from the blighted neighborhood. Not. Ratner purchased the building for $2,200,000 in August 2009. As far as we can figure out, there’s still that last-minute lawsuit out there involving the building’s air rights too.
The Spalding Building Is Prepared For Its Fate [AYR] GMAP
Photo by Raul Rothblatt
jessibaby – how can you count lost potential (if the bonds had even be issued) taxes as negative revenue….using that definition an income tax that taxes at a marginal rate of 95% is revenue negative for the government because they forgo-ed the last 5%. That maybe a great argument for a socialist but not one for opposing government subsidy.
-if Tybur6 or anyone wants to oppose the issuing of Government Bonds for private developments as being unfair, or improper use of borrowing authority – fine – but it is still REVENUE NEUTRAL for the Government
It is revenue-neutral if (a) the developer doesn’t default, and (b) if you ignore the lost tax revenue!! The interest revenue is TAX FREE. The city, state, municipality doesn’t get any money… All the risk, no direct benefit.
The Yankees stadium is an example where the stadium could have and would have been built no matter what… This tax subsidy was not necessary. (Though, the risk for the city and state are very low.)
But AY and other projects have all sorts of tax-free bonds floating around. There will be huge losses in interest income tax revenue AND the risk is clearly quite high. This project is also receiving a crapload of other questionable subsidies for the housing aspects of the project. And I’m sure plenty of others that I haven’t heard of.
Yes, fsrq, I do realize all of that, and I’m not sure why you’re taking such an obnoxious tone. I’m arguing, in agreement with many, many people, including lawyers that I know, and I think, if you did a poll, probably most Americans, that the accepted definition of the “public/use benefit” criteria has become far too broad. It’s gotten to the point that many are wondering if there are any real limits to it anymore, which is what I was expressing there. That’s a perfectly legitimate cause for concern and real debate.
What about the loss of tax revenue that wouldve been generated off of the interest payments – or because it’s federal we’re not talking about it?
tybur6 – the government authorizes a tax free bond for 1M for the benefit of a stadium authority….the stadium authority pays back 1M over 30yrs to the bondholders-
Please explain how that is not essentially revenue neutral to the Government.
“but our society does seem to think that there is value in promoting “high art” while leaving the Lady Gagas of the world to fend for themselves. ”
No “our society” does not follow this [snobbish] doctrine, as demonstrated by the subsidies that go into PUBLIC AMENITIES like arenas and stadium, or publicly funded concerts (of low art) etc…. What “our society” does is: offer real and hidden subsidies all over the place (whatever can get through a political process) and then lets various constituencies fight about it often using meaningless distinctions about each individual subsidies benefit or merit.
“Moreover though, there has to be a line somewhere, doesn’t there?” –
There is, its called “public use/benefit” which the courts know is a VERY broad term and one that is difficult to determine, so unless the term abused as a matter of law, the courts will allow DEMOCRACY (i.e. the legislative and executive branches) to make the call; as long as the constitutional requirement of just compensation is adhered to.
You do realize that unlike rights such a privacy, or abortion – the RIGHT for the Government TO TAKE private property is actually enumerated IN the constitution
FSRQ — Earnings on the fucking BOND (i.e., the interest) not the fucking facility. Jaysus H. Christmas.
And again — I never said i opposed eminent domain. Just the subsidies associated with these projects.
the debate on the merits is a waste of time now. decision made. appeal rejected. it’s now a matter of is that hole better, the stalled construction better vs is the stadium better, the jobs, the higher traffic, etc.
just build it already
tybur6 – you clearly do not understand tax exempt bonds – when the state floats tax-exempt bonds for a project – the taxes on earnings for the facility (assuming it is a taxable facility) are NOT lost. What is tax free is the INTEREST on the bonds. The subsidy comes in because it allows a private developer to borrow more cheaply (interest rate lower b/c the income is tax free). And to call such an arrangement NOT revenue neutral requires a definition of $ that essentially assumes ALL $ is the government’s any anything that isnt taxed is revenue negative – which if it is your stance fail to see why you’d oppose ED.
And you havent made clear that you oppose ALL subsidies – if you do then you are correct- I am wrong, your opposition is intellectually sound, albeit far from reality across so many areas in our current economy, tax system.