Quote:
Originally Posted by Riviera
I have a different take. The city owns the waterfront real estate that will serve the dock. If the city were to make this deal with the Dive, the city would only be deriving $1500 per year for the lease of that real estate. Assuming the dock is for the exclusive use of the Dive, during the “10 to 20 year” lease term, the city derives no financial benefit from the $100,000 expenditure by the business owners of the Dive. The $100,000 expense would be a leasehold improvement, for which the Dive alone would recognize a financial return. In fact, the dive “boat”, and the dock itself, are not taxable as real estate. The Dive would get be getting a spectacular deal.
|
Where does $1,500 a year come in ? You must be a lawyer, and probably a real estate lawyer. More worried about real estate tax loss than the opportunity loss of revenue taxes.
Ugh and ick to lawyers.
As long as we find reasons to say no instead of yes to businesses the area will stay a run down eyesore. Try and squeeze the most out of a business that survived two years and employs a couple dozen-plus people at good wages and you will win - they will leave or fold.
Then what do you have? Empty arcades with garage doors that spend all winter partially open because they can no longer even close, a dive bar and a surprisingly good Mexican restaurant.
Keep stifling growth, lawyers look for reasons to say no, business people look for reasons to say yes - let's take a chance and try. Guess which ones are really needed, especially now ?