I was unaware of that tax break, but after a little soul searching I think I am torn with whether or I am okay with it.

On the one hand it is a temporary abatement and it deals with new builds so at least this is a new revenue stream that will grow tremendously, also this will be some of the highest assessed property in City so enticement to buy could pay off for the City in the long run.

On the flip side I think whoever chose this area for the abatement should be sharply scrutinized this is a high demand area, it needs to be asked whether or not the incentive is really needed here. My suspicion is that it was done on the theory to entice development and line the pockets of developers (and perhaps a specific developer knowing how our government works).

A much better use in my opinion would be to target growth of Buffalo's middle class, I am not sure as to how these abatements are proportioned but if targeted at middle class growth it could have a greater effect in neighborhood stabilization.

Tax abatements on new residential buildings in cities are the way things get built. If you are against tax abatements you are against new residential development downtown

take 5 minutes to look through the new condo listings on Craigslist for New York City. 90% or more of them have 8-10-15 year tax abatement to induce people to buy, which induces developers to build. And since when are more taxes desireable? It's just more money for the city and county to misspend...

Ike I am not opposed to the abatements, and I think you'd find me to be about as anti tax as one gets but to say that new build residential wont get built without tax abatements is just wrong. It certainly helps build a market for buyers- which reduces the risk for builders, but if a builder's risk is low to begin with they will build without the abatements.

My concern is with the strategy in their application- basically that the risk is lower on waterfront development, if you look at the sales history of the existing condos, you will find they don't hit the market often, and when new builds are commissioned they are sold within a year- when putting the amount of units into service that this development does the risk certainly is much higher- which is probably why it qualifies. I think for the long term health of the area that they should be directed at the middle class. I think our concerns are not far off, your last point is right on- the more $ a government has the more it will misspend, the problem is that governments are using these abatements to get the highest yield in tax revenue- not to gain the highest yield for the community.

Do something partcularly beneficial to the westside, westvillage and erie canal wharf district!!!!!

What is that!

put these new developments on the old street grid and reconnect them to Niagara Street, Erie, Charles, Mechanic, Genessee, Wilkinson, Georgia, Carolina, Virgina, Maryland, Hudson, Pennsylvania, Jersey and Porter...or as I like to refer to the canal district as the State Street district because most of Buffalos waterfront has the names of states.

Will, First of all City Center is what 20 years old now, its a market that has changed quite drastically. Secondly City Center is not a testament to the fact that tax abatements are needed for new builds (I believe that City Center did receive numerous tax benefits- but I do not know how similar they were to the ones that Paladino's development will receive), but rather City Center demonstrates building too many units at once is dangerous when the market supporting the units is unproven at best. At the time there was little demand for downtown housing, and City Center flooded the market. In the short term lenders lost the shirts- in the long term the building did get legs but only when the capture rate caught up to the number of units.

Again I do want to make myself clear, I don't disagree with you entirely, the tax benefits do reduce risk and do create larger complexes because of it, they are great boons to development in a lot of cases. I just don't think they are necessary for every new build, and I think we might be getting a better return for our community if they weren't used only for the highest tax bracket.

Interesting NY Times article on how tax abatement program turned Center City Philadelphia around

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/realestate/08nati.html?ex=1294376400&en=600fb98190dacd74&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Well, in this respect I firmly believe that our tax dollars should not be given to unions or to politicians or burocratic good for nothing agencies like the BMHA but instead used to subsidize infill development and revitalization.

I have said it before and I will say it again....I think there needs to be a county tax on all property in the county then a rebate for all property within a specific zone. This would make sprawl more expensive and redevelopment in existing neighborhoods less expensive.

Furthermore, a significant amount of our city and county tax dollars go to managing empty buildings, empty lots, parking lots, brownfields and urban prairies.....subsidizing urban infill would not be as expensive as people assume because it would be widening and expanding the existing tax base.

The problem comes from politicians and from unions! Anytime the city widens its tax base the unions and politicians udemand that money for themselves either through fluff budgets, union arbitration, bloated budget numbers or expanded programs or from albanies unfunded mandates. There must be a way to take certain revenue numbers off budget and out of the hands of unions, union arbitrators and vote buying politicians.

the condo tower looks better in that rendering than in the original ones being shown up until now...although it looks like something near where i used to live in suburban maryland

aka

If this was red hot territory these units would be starting at 700K not topping out at that level

aka_mouse are you a developer? all these developers that are multi-millionaires did not become that wealthy on luck and good looks. they are smart business men. with about half a dozen condo projects more planned for in the city in that price bracket I would say there is a market for them.

IMO, this project is an opportunity lost. The original RFP called for a retail component but Paladino, who argued strenuously that retail was inappropriate for Waterfront Village, was awarded the project anyway. So, we end up with a project that is essentially a fortress at the ground level (garages, parking structure, etc.) instead of at least a few small scale stores such as a coffee shop, drycleaner etc. to serve both the immediate neighborhood and office population. Architecturally speaking, I kind of like the condo tower as presented in the rendering but the townhouses are horrible. What's with those small windows when water and downtown views are what makes this location significant!