Jason on steel mill versus four story building issue, you need to ask foundation design. They did the research in March of 2009. They warned of high water tables, corrosive water and depth of bedrock as concerns in building there. To build 10 to 12 story buildings there only increases the cost of the foundation. Those real costs made the project not feasible. Good to hear you will be there.
Jasonw, it is always fun to watch a person discredit themselves like you have here. If you were an interested individual you would know the numbers I provide have been spot on because they come from the developer and the city. None are created from thin air. The parking area, if you check out state laws concerning parks is considered part of the park even if in this case the city owns it. If parking areas for parks are sold, it must be approved at the state level and in most cases there must be replacement land. I am sure you would know that because you are following this project closely. By the way, the charrette is being organized via the Charlotte Community Association, not Charlotte Strong. If you want to follow a bit more closely, show up at the meetings which will be starting this January and add your own thoughts, ideas and concerns rather than attack Charlotte Strong. Please participate in the planning so you can have it somewhat your way.
Jason, thanks for calling the Charlotte Strong group "bullies". That indicates to me that people are paying attention to the real issues about development at the Port of Charlotte. It also indicates either you don't understand the issues related to the last failed attempt for development or maybe you work for the City of Rochester. The only real objections to the last project plans by Charlotte Strong and many of the Charlotte neighbors (2000 signed a petition to rethink the project) is that 10 or 12 or even 4 story buildings along the east side of Lake Avenue would (1) block any view of the lake. river and new marina, (2) would be difficult to sell at $750,000 and up for three to four months of great weather (3) may be very costly to build on the planned site because it is on a buried gorge wall with bedrock in some areas over 100 feet below the surface, (4) the planned development was on city park land which would be lost to the larger community forever, as mentioned above in a comment. The other much larger problem to development in the Charlotte community is the lack of available land in the Port of Charlotte area and the reality that there is only one through- street, Lake Avenue extended to Beach Avenue and it is only two lanes with no room for expansion. The Charlotte Strong group were only seen as bullies (which just came up in this set of comments) because we kept asking about how to solve just these problems and the problem of the dreams of a developer who only had one real success story in St. Joe, Michigan and whos Charlotte project revenue and cost numbers never worked very well. As for the marina, our concern there was the cost. On the books, it is $22,000,000. In reality it is probably over $30,000,000 due to it being the third attempt at planning and building the facility. Last year it was only half full. It is another hard to swallow known fact that if the marina were fully rented every year for the next 50 years without any operational costs (not possible) it would be paid off. You can't find a bank in the country which would finance that deal especially when you state the marina itself will only service approximately 50 vessels for three months of the year. In summary, so if Charlotte Strong members asking tough questions about how the city plans to give away our property and spend our tax money makes us "bullies" than so be it. We will immediately start working on new green tee-shirts with an added line, "the bullies of Charlotte because we care about how our tax dollars are spent!"
I find this new need to research about the financials of festivals by the City humorous at best. The city continues to bury the real cost of the new Marina Project in layer after layer of accounting and department accounts. They plan on spending $108,000 on research about attracting cruise lines to Rochester when information is very clear that if you could attract all 100% of the cruises of the major Great Lakes cruise lines which cruise Lake Ontario, it would be 26, now there are 6 which stop in Rochester for less than a day. Then there is the 26 million to fill in the east end of the inner loop. Lastly we have the quickly advancing vote on a solar farm at the old Emerson St Landfill which will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars while presenting the project as saving the city money on electricity. Need I go on. A city government which is anything but transparent should probably clean up its act before attempting to control the festivals which does nothing but bring revenues to lots of Rochester businesses. This is just another way to strong arm Rochester businesses which are successful.
There is that old phrase which comes to mind after reading your column, "It takes one to know one". You see, you have accused Mr. Trump of being a bigot. Well if you takes a review of the definition, bigot, it states: " a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions." Sure sounds like you. I am sure what causes the most fear for you, the liberals, the media and the establishment Republicans is that just maybe the average citizen has had enough of being told what they should think, that the real enemy is not the extremist Muslim, that climate change is a real threat to our future when there is plenty of evidence otherwise and I can go on. The liberal story has lost its momentum because all have seen though its false narrative. Trump just happens to be the one not afraid to state things as they really are and people are applauding his message.
I have reviewed the available information for all of these projects. They all rely on state and federal funds to the tune of 75% of the cost. Just to remind everyone here, the state and federal funds are not from money trees hidden on their governmental campuses somewhere. The money is very much a part of our national debt and our taxpayer contributions. Without those funds, there would not be one solar company operating for profit in our country. The return on investment would be close to 90 years on panels which are only good for about 20 years. But our local governments want to look "GREEN" and helping to solve the CO2 problem, something that really does not exists.
Kwai Chang, if you are talking Greece the suburban, you have the same opportunity to get state and federal money "REFUND" to pay for your panels. You also get to wait the 92 years to get a return on the investment, if the panels last that long. If you are in Greece, the country, you don't have that federal money there because that government has already given away all the money producers in your country made and they no longer have "other people's money" to give away. The US government is working hard to come in second in giving away "other people's money" to the extent that it runs out.
All Comments »
Website powered by Foundation.