Proposal shows no abatement needed for Meadowbrook-Lee
Do citizens have a say in what happens in their community? To their tax dollars?
Cleveland Heights City Council has asked the Board of Education to approve an 11yr 80% tax abatement to a developer to build on Meadowbrook-Lee.
Cleveland Heights City Council plans to further subsidize this plan by GIVING the developer the acre of land to build on. Land that taxpayers spent $1 million to purchase, demolish buildings and remediate.
On July 17 Orlean Company made a presentation to the Board of Education, asking for this tax abatement. I have attached the presentation.
I have also extracted page 23 from the Orlean document that shows, with their own numbers, that they do not need the abatement to make the project work.
As you can see, the developer showed a positive cash flow of $41,000 in the first year, WITHOUT a tax abatement.
This $41,000 is left after they pay:
- Debt service.
- Reserve fund (money put away for a rainy day).
- The entire unabated tax bill.
They have demonstrated no need for any abatement of any size.
Or for "donated land".
Do citizens have a say in this proposed transfer of public funds and property to a private entity?
We need a community forum on this issue so that this decision is made after all the facts have been presented and we have had an opportunity to talk about this together.
Do citizens have a say in what happens to their community?
P.S. If you want the Board of Education to know how you feel, you can contact them with the information provided here.
Garry Kanter
6:05 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
Great job, Fran! That tax abatement for the 11 years is worth $3,080,000.
That's $3,080,000 that our city and our school kids could sure use!
Ralph Solonitz
8:58 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
stop the master-abaters...another corporate giveaway that only hurts property owners existing businesses and school funding.
Garry Kanter
8:59 am on Thursday, August 30, 2012
Right on!
Charles Taylor
4:36 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
An earlier post by Gary suggested there were legal impediments to granting a tax abatement to a going concern, such as the Orleans Company that involved principles with prior unresolved tax liens. The allegation involved Ken Lurie obligations and the further suggestion of a reclassification of his position to avoid this state law prohibition. Can we explore, through this lens, a legal challenge to any abatement upon this basis? If Lurie is a principle in this going concern, changing his title and classification may be legally cognizable as fraud. Whether and what type of development should be imposed on this parcel may be open for debate, but allowing Orleans anywhere near this decision is irresponsible and might not be able to withstand legal scrutiny in court.
Garry Kanter
5:23 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Thanks for bringing this up!!!
In a telephone conversation, I informed the law director of Ken Lurie's inclusion on the October, 2011 Cuyahoga County Dirty Dozen Delinquent Property Owners listing. He was not previously aware of this.
He said that Lurie would have to disclose that, and that a tax abatement can't be given to someone that has a tax delinquency with any taxing authority in the state of Ohio.
A week or so later, in a phone conversation, a council member told me that issue had been resolved. She explained that Lurie was an "employee of the Orlean Company."
I don't think the taxpayers' interests are being represented with "solutions" like that.
It highlights the inherent conflicts when a developer "partners" with the mayor and council. How can We The People's best interests be served, while those elected to represent me, and their subordinates, are looking for ways to keep the deal alive?
I want to be represented, not sold to.
Channel 5: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/list-revealed-cuyahoga-county-cracks-down-on-dirty-dozen-delinquent-taxpayers
The PD: http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2011/11/its_about_time_cuyahoga_county.html
Ken Lurie's response to the PD. What's that saying about the guy who represents himself?: http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2011/11/developer_responds_to_unfair_c.html