Comments on: Greenbelt Commission Backs County Tax

By: Gary Salton

Gary Salton — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:06:12 +0000

@11: Steve–The way to get somewhere is to look out of the windshield at the road most of the time and look in the rear view mirror only on occasion. It strikes me that you spend too much time worried about where you’ve been and too little on where you are going. The outcome of your strategy appears to be a lot of complaints and very few new ideas. A bit more time offering options for the future instead of criticisms of the past actions of others who are actually TRYING TO DO SOMETHING would seem to be useful.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:51:21 +0000

“On Wednesday, Kohring reported that the Braun farm, which originally appraised for just over $4 million, was now appraised at $2,107,500. For the Gould property, the appraisal was lowered from $691,000 to $385,000.”

Steve, my two million was based on the payment for decrease in actual current value of the properties.

And Gary, if you are fine with multi-million dollar errors in the purchasing process, then we ARE different. Fortunately, most other taxpayers who will be asked to renew this county millage probably won’t be as free with tossing around cash for mistakes as you are.

The problem with local government is that past errors just keep continuing.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:25:16 +0000

I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the City to insist on financing (and, in turn, appraisal) contingencies to be included in purchase agreements or “options to purchase” made for development rights. These are standard contingencies in any real estate sales transaction. So standard in fact, they have simple check boxes on the Realtor forms.

What I really wonder is what could be done to shorten the time between signing and closing? A lot can happen in real estate in two years and it can’t be good for either side to have these transactions take so long to close.

By: Gary Salton

Gary Salton — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:52:13 +0000

@7: No one said it was not a “big deal”, Alan. Just that it is a sunk cost. If there is nothing you can do about it, why would any sane person want to dwell on it? At least for me, reveling in past errors does not appear to be a productive use of time. But I guess we’re all different.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:35:52 +0000

Alan, where do you get $2 million? It appears that the additional cost that would result is $440,500 ($377,000 + $63,500), and part of that could be covered by AA Township.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:30:59 +0000

Gary, you’re right. It’s only $2 Million and just taxpayer money. Not a big deal, let’s just “get on with it”.

By: Gary Salton

Gary Salton — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:21:37 +0000

Hey! Let’s bite the bullet and get on with it. The “woulda, shoulda, coulda” kind of backward thinking just impedes progress. And I think that the lawyers will just love the “airtight” agreement strategy–if you can find anyone who will sell you anything under those terms at a reasonable price (the seller pays lawyers too). Let’s just do our best and get on with it.

By: David Lewis

David Lewis — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:19:03 +0000

If I remember right the federal ranch lands program requires a binding agreement before they consider the application.

The program was put in place in large part to help farmers, it was not intended to be a huge help to taking land out of development the way the green belt does.

The city may not be able to specify that the purchase is contingent on financing if they want to go after the federal money.

In any event the city and A2 Township should buy the development rights to this land right outside of town.

Alan I have to say that it is difficult to accept anything you say without a giant grain of salt. The city administrator and council could announce a huge tax cut while preserving everything and you would complain about how much Fraser was making or how silly the council looked at the press conference.

By: PeteM

PeteM — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:53:12 +0000

This is a nice story, but I think it also buries the lede. The fact that the Feds are reducing their contribution and the City may have no out isn’t raised until the end

While I agree that no one can predict the future, the city should have made its financing a contingency on all of these agreements. It sounds like the City could end paying an additional $500,000.00 (while overpaying significantly).

I would want policies in place to ensure that financing is absolute airtight contingency on all future agreements before a renewal is proposed.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:32:40 +0000

I think you make your own luck and to sign an agreement to purchase something without all the backup funding in place and not sign an OPTION to buy something is kind of Business 101. A two million dollar mistake the taxpayers, who in good faith passed the Greenbelt millage and expected to have their money spent wisely, aren’t going to appreciate and likely will take it out on the county renewal. That is, if it even gets to a vote now.

Either way, bad luck or incompetence, it’s just this kind of waste of tax funds than makes people skeptical of voting in any tax increase. Like a city income tax.

Greenbelt mistakes, taking skimming operating funds to sink into the Court-Police Building, the $800K ‘artwork’, putting the city at risk for the Library Parking Lot project with the bond issue. At a certain point, it crossed the line from bad luck to incompetence.