From Brian Lockhart, CT Post:
Land use officials have complicated the city’s efforts to sell the shuttered Bassick High School for $6 million to a housing developer.
Some key issues involve the property’s true worth — the municipal tax assessor appraised it at $47 million — and proposed rents and whether condominiums should be a part of the future residential complex.
“I think we can get more bang for our buck,” Johanna Dorgan, a zoning commissioner, explained Tuesday of her vote the previous night against recommending the Bassick deal to the City Council.
She and her six colleagues all rejected the proposed sale of the eight-acre site to New York City-based Pillar Property Management, which is looking to build 190 mostly market rate apartments, community spaces and possibly some retail.
The zoning commission’s action Monday does not kill that project. But as a result, when the full 20-person council convenes to take up the matter, two-thirds will now need to back it. Had the commission instead issued a positive recommendation, only a simple majority would suffice.
Full story here
SMFH…HERE WE GO AGAIN BPT……WITH ALL THE CRAP WITH THE HARDING BUILDING REALLY
Lennie, Tony Barr is looking for you:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CSTaphpHo/
Coach T,
I understand your frustration, but perhaps the “CRAP WITH THE HARDING BUILDING” and now the former Bassick building, and currently promoted on OIB, the former Remington Arms property with no community bodies looking early on to the proposals, as the source of your CAPITALS!
In our 250th year measured from 1776 in Philadelphia where the Founders declared independence from England, did we need an address to our Congress yesterday from a royal descendant of King George III, King Charles, to remind us of “checks and balances” provided by the Founders? I think not. But I am happy to see standing applause by most of Congress to the mild mannered but well ordered address.
Perhaps we need to review the process by which property and buildings, owned by the Bridgeport and therefore an asset on our balance sheet, or in the case of Remington, of vital City importance for environmental, future use by remediation, or energy security become available. What is such a process or where do we reach back in history for an update?
When OPED finds a buyer/developer on its own, what is the process they start for community review? Would there be notice to the local City Council members in the specific or surrounding districts, at a minimum? From the vandalism, break-ins, and fires, security notices to police, fire, public facility, and emergency departments are necessary to maintain safety, security, and community financial values.
The Mayor’s office exerts authorized power and process over City activities. He does so additionally through boards and commissionts where appointments are generally unknown, positions serve beyond expiry or not, creating vacuums making quorums difficult and quality of service to the community may not be well known. For instance, a ‘Citizens Union’ process by which annual review of Community Block Development Grant (CDBG) funds from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is not mentioned in the Charter, or the City website, or provide a response from an Ordinance search. What is it of importance to us? It is part of a process that gets millions from HUD annually as part of community outreach. Who is that important to? Time will tell.
Kudos to the zoning commission on their vote to reject the proposed Bassick sale.
The City Council is set to give away an 800% equity gain to the developer. Soon after the purchase, the developer will eventually get a loan against the 800% of equity.
Along with the purchase of Bassick High School, the developer is entitled by State Statute a tax abatement of up to 25 years.
Connecticut law affords an entity who purchases city owned Property located inside a Development Zone a tax abatement.
Last week’s CtPost article quoted a City Official stating the property assessment was wrong or too high. If the assessment was too high, why didn’t the Ganim administration appeal the assessment with the Board of Assessment Appeal? There’s one explanation if you know how Joe Ganim’s thinking goes–Keeping the assessment high and the tax abatement a secret, keep any other potential buyers away.
Here are some of the most recent State Statute benefitting developers fortunate enough to have connections to decision brokers in high places:
+8
Connecticut municipalities can abate property taxes for specific projects, particularly affordable housing, via CGS §8-215 and §12-65h, allowing agreements up to 40 years. Tax abatement is often used to make private non-profit or limited-dividend housing feasible. Generally, city-owned properties are tax-exempt, but private owners of public land may need abatement contracts.
+4
Key Connecticut Tax Abatement Statutes
CGS § 8-215 (Tax Abatements for Low-Income Housing): Allows municipalities to abate taxes for housing projects aimed at low- or moderate-income residents.
C G A – Connecticut General Assembly (.gov)
C G A – Connecticut General Assembly (.gov)
+1
CGS § 12-65h (Development of Affordable Housing Units): Permits municipalities to enter into voluntary tax abatement agreements for affordable housing developments.
C G A – Connecticut General Assembly (.gov)
C G A – Connecticut General Assembly (.gov)
+1