Comments on: More Arguing Over 93 East Ave.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:29:53 +0000

Nor should he have to. I am sure that if it were more profitable for him to do so, that is what he would have done. I have seen the drawings and it looks to be a very nice expansion. It seems a lot nicer than the old DMV building and the several brick office buildnins that are actually much closer to the green than 93 is.

By: not rich

not rich — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:04:48 +0000

The City would collect even more tax revenues if the Inn were to adopt one of the preservation-presented alternatives to expand the Inn and sold 93 East Avenue to be rehabbed as apartments or office space. That would be a win-win…but I guess Handrinos is just not that into compromise.

By: anon

anon — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:39:38 +0000

Except the preservationist experts were wrong amd the house was not as it was purported to be so it was a big waste of money. Where are all these preservationists now. Why don’t they donate enough money to buy land abd rebuild the Incerto house? Or do they want it rebuilt with other people’s money?

By: Old Timer

Old Timer — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:38:55 +0000

The logic behind developers like Seligson asking for money from the City, State, or Federal government on a major redevelopment project is simple. The developer is taking considerable risk with his own money to build/develop in a manner that will bring long term benefit to the City, State, and Federal Govt. in much higher tax revenue. A really good project will cause enormous benefits, both direct and indirect. One successful office building will be copied by others, one successful retail store will be copied, etc.. The developers feel it is reasonable for the government entities that will benefit for years to share in some of the initial risk/expense. A property with an old multi family house doesn’t pay anywhere near the tax a big commercial building pays, nor generate the jobs. You can be sure the projected tax revenue from a Seligson project far outweighs the tax money he is looking for.
For that matter, the tax the city will collect from an addition to the hotel will be many times what they get from 93 East Ave, and the hotel isn’t even asking for any money from the City.
Most builder/developers don’t ask for tax money to finance small low-risk projects and, in fact,sometimes spend their money installing infrastructure for the City, like sewers, storm drains, roads, etc.

By: Wiltonian

Wiltonian — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:41:45 +0000

#65 – I may be wrong, but wasn’t Seligson approached to store the Incerto house pieces, and did he not do so free of charge for a period of time? Not that this justifies money for private development (a different argument), but it is a demonstration of the point that the preservationists obtained a “private donation” from HIM to keep that Flying Dutchman from ending up at the Transfer Station. Give him at least a little bit of credit for that.

By: Old Timer

Old Timer — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:53:24 +0000

The lady who led the group that fought the demolition of the Abel Bradley house, Eleanor Dickey, moved to England before the project was finished. The builder/owner offered to give the preservationists the house and $10,000 tiward the cost of moving it, and they wouldn’t take it. He eventually completely restored the building, at great expense, and made it a part of a large home he built on the property. As far as I could find, there was an injunction to prevent demolition, but the final deal that saved the house was not the result of a court decision, but a compromise between the builder and the preservationists that cost the builder a lot of money. The preservationists, in this case, were able to get the building “under consideration” for listing in the federal register and that brought it under the protection of the same law being used in the 93 East Ave case, that allows anybody to file suit to prevent demolition. Mrs Dickey filed suit under the name of a coalition to save the house and the delay that promised caused the builder to work out the eventual compromise and get the suit withdrawn.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:48:49 +0000

Another who also agrees,he should not be given a dime.

By: anon

anon — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:05:50 +0000

I agree. Investors should not be given use of public funds for their projects.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:23:01 +0000

But Seligson has done so much for our city he is the one that is going to save us and our kids from the perils of blight,crime and homeless.Lets not forget in order for Norwalk to continue its trek to the top we are going to need Mayor Dick Moccia to hold the reins and bring the money home for the visiting team.

Has Mr Brown filed for a demolition permit for his block of rundown buildings on Chestnut and Henry st yet so our state of the art train station can be built? Now that is going to be a sweet deal for him.He was very vocal the last meeting they had supporting we spend millions on another parking garage for the train station.Wonder if he knows Seligson.

By: not rich

not rich — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:00:25 +0000

I don’t understand why developers (re: Seligson), feel it’s OK to ask the city, the State and the Feds for money to build a private development. If Seligson needs money to build, let him get it from private donations (like the preservationists do when working to preserve).