Dudley Webb now says he can build his CentrePointe tower without public money.
Maybe he should.
Originally, Webb wanted as much as $70 million in tax increment financing — known as TIF — to pay for ”public“ improvements related to the $250 million project. Those could include additional underground parking, a giant outside video screen and some public art.
Last week, after during a hearing in which a city panel gave Webb permission to tear down all of the old buildings on the block, he his attorney surprised everyone by saying he could do the project without TIF financing.
But if he did that, of course, the public amenities would be “scaled back.”
You get the idea.
“The community and the Urban County Council need to tell us, do they want us to go ahead with the TIF application?” Webb said.
The Urban County Council and a state board must approve any TIF financing for CentrePointe. The council could begin discussing it Tuesday.
Maybe council members should call Webb’s bluff and say, “Fine. Go ahead.”
CentrePointe has always seemed to be questionable as a TIF project.
The state TIF program allows a portion of future taxes generated by a new development to go toward paying for public improvements needed to make the development possible.
The idea is to help build “signature” projects that will spur economic activity around them.
Others have proposed TIF projects to replace Rupp Arena and create an entertainment district along Manchester Street. It’s easy to see how those projects could accomplish the goal.
CentrePointe, on the other hand, would house a luxury hotel, luxury condos, stores and restaurants.
When Webb spoke to the Bluegrass Hospitality Association recently, hoteliers expressed skepticism about the market for a new luxury hotel. Meanwhile, downtown is awash in unsold condos and vacant retail space.
Would CentrePointe create new economic activity downtown, or just compete for what’s already there?
Not to mention that Webb is trying to build CentrePointe during the worst construction and financing market in years. Aside from vague references to “international” money, Webb hasn’t disclosed his financing.
All of those factors should give local and state officials pause about putting public money into CentrePointe.
Plus, there’s this: Kentucky law requires officials to certify that a TIF project couldn’t be built without public assistance. Webb’s comments last week seem to undermine that idea.
So what if there is no TIF financing? The developer should still be required to provide adequate on-site parking and streetscape improvements.
Webb has resisted meaningful public participation into what would be one of the biggest, most high-profile developments in Lexington’s history.
When preservationists heard rumors of his plans two years ago and expressed concerns about some of the historic structures on the block, Webb listened politely — and ignored them. With help from some city officials, he kept his plans secret from the public until March, when they were unveiled as a done deal. While Webb has made some design improvements to respond to critics, they have been minor.
Given Webb’s lack of interest in public participation, it may not be a good idea to put public money at risk on CentrePointe.
If Webb does apply for TIF financing, the council should ask a lot of questions, and insist on some safeguards.
The first safeguard would be to prohibit demolition of the buildings now on the block, some of which date to 1826, until the TIF application is approved and other financing is secured and documented.
Remember the World Hole Center?
When the Phoenix Hotel block across Limestone Street from the CentrePointe block was cleared in 1981, future Gov. Wallace Wilkinson was promising to build a 50-story office tower he called the World Coal Center.
It never happened.
Instead, Lexington was left for several years with a big hole, dubbed the World Hole Center. Eventually, the public library, Park Plaza apartments and Phoenix Park were built to fill the void.
Here’s the best thing that could have happened with CentrePointe: Webb could have incorporated a few of the existing structures, or their facades, into a contemporary development that would be uniquely Lexington.
But here’s the worst that could happen: Webb could clear the block, his development plan could collapse and we could be left with another hole in the middle of town — and no historic fabric for a more creative developer to work with in the future.
July 1, 2008 at 8:29 am
Great article. While I wasn’t around Lexington during the ‘Hole’ fiasco, that kind of scenario would be tragic.
July 1, 2008 at 11:00 am
Perfect.
One note, Webb’s lawyer made the claim that they didn’t need TIF funding at the very BEGINNING of their presentation in front of the board, not just after. This was an obvious rouse to convince the board that CP would clear the TIF obstacle and be built no matter what, hence the buildings aren’t worth saving in the meantime.
I can guarantee you that the Webb’s will come crawling back to us begging for our tax dollars, saying they can’t build it without the TIF.
No dice, Dudley.
July 1, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Media Czech,
I will take you up on your guarantee. The city will beg the Webbs to apply for a TIF before its all over. However, in the event this project continues without the TIF, I would hope that you “guarantee” a retraction.
Tom,
Your personal bias towards the developers can no longer be ignored or hidden under the guise of journalism. You are clearly muckraking. This “Tomfoolery” is not warranted. The editorial section of the HL today glosses over a $50million dollar project the city must consider. Currently, the city government is housed in a clearly historic hotel that it can no longer afford to maintain. The editorial effectively states that demolishing that building would be no big deal. In comparison, you seem to be on a personal mission to thwart this project and it is now apparrent that you are doing so by inaccurately and possibly intentionally misreporting facts. At best you are just a poor journalist and at worst you are a saboteur. Don’t say this was a “column” and not intended to be “news”. It was on the front page of the city/region section. If you are going to continue to abuse your power by personally attacking the Webbs, at least do it accurately. Although getting closer all the time, the H-L is not yet the National Enquirer, so please check your facts before you write a distorting article.
July 1, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Tom, kudos for yet another excellent article on the realities of the fiasco that is BloatedPointe. And kudos to Preserve Lexington for filing suit to stop the demolition. As for you Tim, it is laughable that you would have the nerve to accuse anybody of being biased. You have repeatedly countered others well informed and logical comments on Tom’s articles and in his blog with nothing but baseless and ad hominem personal attacks. Just a few days ago i called your bluff on the disingenuous nature of one of your “criticisms” of me with regard to “shooting the messenger”. Exactly how much are the Webbs paying you, inquiring minds want to know? Here is a classic example of the hypocrisy and double talk by the Webbs that fuels the suspicion and anger against them and their proposals:
On April 5, 2008, Dudley Webb said:
“Josie”, as we have said all along, this project is not being driven by the 2010 Games as absolutely nobody would invest $250,000,000.00 in downtown Lexington for a three week event.
On June 26, 2008, Dudley Webb said:
“I would like to see the project buttoned up by the 2010 games,” Webb said, adding that he meant he did not want CentrePointe to look like a construction site when thousands of visitors come to Lexington for the Alltech FEI World Equestrian Games.
Just like his contradictory statements concerning the TIF funds, this is the kind of double talk some of us have come to expect from Dudley Webb and are why we have difficulty swallowing what he is feeding the city…..
July 1, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Tim — what are these inaccuracies and distortions that you are talking about? You come on here and complain but you fail to include a single example where Tom “misreported facts.”
July 1, 2008 at 1:20 pm
John 57, I’m not sure how you can proclaim Mr. Webb was engaging in hypocrisy and double talk regarding the 2010 Games. Settle down and review your comment (rant). Hopefully you will see the obvious poor correlation made in your ‘classic example’ and save yourself the embarrassment of others having to spell it out to you on a blog.
July 1, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Thank you for this great article Mr Eblen. We should learn from Chicago’s example that Tax Increment Financing is nothing more than a vehicle for funneling millions of dollars in property taxes away from things like schools to rich developers. The TIF uses a lot of accounting sleights of hand to make it look as if tax dollars grow on trees, but the net effect is that those tax dollars that go to the developer are dollars that should have properly spent on something else.
Here are some articles about the sad realities of TIF in Chicago. Lexington can do better.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/theworks/070622/
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/theworks/070413/
http://www.chicagoreader.com/tifarchive/
July 1, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“John 57, I’m not sure how you can proclaim Mr. Webb was engaging in hypocrisy and double talk regarding the 2010 Games. Settle down and review your comment (rant). Hopefully you will see the obvious poor correlation made in your ‘classic example’ and save yourself the embarrassment of others having to spell it out to you on a blog.”
What “rant”? What’s to spell out? He said he wasn’t being “driven” by the games them when talking about the TIF funding starting construction said “I would like to see the project buttoned up by the 2010 games…” He then made a CYA comment saying he didn’t want it to look like a construction project. When a project is “buttoned up”, that means it’s finished to me and any other person I know. When one is “buttoned up” for an event, it , means they’re ready to walk out the door. You have misstated my comments as a rant when they weren’t just as you are now trying to “spin” Webbs’s comments. Why is it when people like you and Tim come on here to “defend” Webb, you chose to use personal insults and misrepresentations? You’re entitled to your opinion, but I neither ranted nor did I use a poor correlation. Perhaps “buttoned up” means something different to you than the average person, but I have made it clear what my opinion is based on.
July 1, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Troy, let me give it a shot.
1. There is no study, report, or basis of any type to claim that a new Rupp Arena will spur any more economic activity than Cenre Pointe. We already have a basketball arena, so while a new arena might be nicer, give fans a better view, have more luxury boxes, help us recruit better basketball players, and maybe even host a few more sporting events (although may require a much bigger capacity than what Lexington is currently planning), it won’t generate extra economic activity. The people that would go to the new Arena are already going there. In fact, the best hope for economic activity generated by the Arena would be increased convention use and hosting sporting events. But that will also require significantly expanded downtown hotel capacity, i.e. Centre Pointe.
2. The claim that public money is at risk if Centre Pointe were approved but not built is also incorrect. That’s just not how it works. If the project is not built, the people who invested in the bonds will not make money, but they city won’t lose any tax dollars. A TIF depends on future increase in revenue, and pays a portion of that increase to the bond holder. If there is no increase, no money is paid to the bond holder. Of course, if Mr. Eblem were actually concerned about the project not having sufficient financing, you would think he would be all about the TIF, what with increasing the financing and all. Instead, it seems Mr. Eblem has chosen the path of hoping the project fails so he can say I told you so, instread of supporting ways to make it succeed.
3. Accusing the developers of a lack of interest in public participation is an easy insult to throw about, but it has no merit. Even opponents of the proposal concede that the developers met with city officials multiple times about the project. As a person who thinks it is the job of elected officials to speak for the public, I call that seeking public input. Some officials, like Newberry, seem to have supported the project. Others, like Gray, clearly don’t. But they have all participated and continue to do so. I also remember a public meeting Mr. Webb attended, and numerous changes made to the design of the project based on public comments. And the public will also participate again before the planning commission, and again if the City Council decides to move for the TIF. It seems the problem is not a lack of interest in overall public participation, but certain individuals’ complaints about the level of their personal participation. Last week at the hearing I heard Mr. Graddy claim that the goal of the Courthouse Area Design Review Board is to force developers to reach a compromise with him and his clients. What about me, and everyone else in the city. Why do a few people have the right to decide compromises they want for the whole city and then accuse the developer of ignoring the public if they won’t agree. I am a member of the public who would like the tower to be 80 stories tall, where’s the complaint that the developer is not seeking my input?
July 1, 2008 at 4:47 pm
John57,
Wanting a project to be sufficiently finished before the 2010 games so that it does not look like it is a construction site does not mean that the 2010 games are the reason the project is being built. There is no inconsistency.
July 1, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Troy,
The most recent inaccuracy was proclaiming that the Webbs stated TIF was not needed after the hearing. The Webbs actually prefaced the hearing by advising that TIF was not needed. Tom Eblen has now half heartedly and still incorrectly attempted to edit this inaccuracy by changing “after” to “during”, which is still wrong. As I stated, the TIF announcment was made as a preface to the Webbs opening statement. These choice of words and the placement of that comment are examples of irresponsible journalism practiced by Ebelen. He is attempting, directly and through implication, to alter the scope and substance of the statement to make it appear that the Webbs either made the statement on the fly to confuse matters or purposely held it back in an attempt to sandbag the committee. The truth is that the Webbs were completely open with the TIF statement at the beginning, so everyone was aware and could ask questions if they chose to do so.
Ebelen is also disingenuous by saying the city “should call Webb’s bluff”. By directly stating that Webb is bluffing regarding the TIF statement. He unequivocally takes the stance that the TIF statment is false. He also makes unsupported statements regarding the need for additional hotel and housing downtown and provides a “best” case scenario that only includes incorporation of the existing structures. Ebelen’s diatribe has been getting progressively more negative concerning the project and this latest article finally reveals his open contempt for a project that he ultimately knows will become a reality despite all of his attempts to bash it.
July 1, 2008 at 5:18 pm
John57,
You’ve previously posted under a different name haven’t you? Ad hominem?
July 1, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I, too, hope that the project becomes a reality. I do, however, have some skepticism (a healthy level if you ask me) about using TIF for this project (or any other project for that matter).
July 1, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Troy,
I can understand your skepticism about the TIF, but in this case, the Webbs are no longer pursuing it. However, the drafter of the TIF statute in Kentucky, Mr. Farris, has thoroughly explained the way a TIF works and the fact that there is no downside to the public. He openly endorses its use for the Centrepointe project. The Jim Gray’s of the world have successfully used and confused the public to delay this project under the flag of “public interest”. The reality is that with TIF off the table, Gray and his followers must now reveal their true motivation and can’t rely on the banner of public interest.
July 2, 2008 at 9:21 am
Media Czech,
How about that guarantee! The council met and passed a resolution to be heard Thursday to encourage the Webbs to apply for a TIF. Again the Webbs attorney said that they would only be interested in a TIF if the city asked them to apply. It appears the city now realizes what a mistake was made by allowing cowboys like Gray and Decamp to shoot up the town with their unfettered and uneducated talk. If your word has any merit, and if you are not a cowardly individual, you will post a retraction because the Webbs aren’t “crawling” back to anyone.
July 2, 2008 at 9:48 am
The Webb companies have accumulated authority to demolish all of the buildings on the proposed Centre Pointe block, with recent review board and council wins.
Remaining motions of the council are likely to further solidify that authority.
The decision to demolish then is likely to reside ultimately with the Webbs. Few people have doubted that this would be the case.
This authority, however, does not rise to the level of prerogative, as some claim, because other factors including the cultural inheritance of Lexington and a civic responsibility for the conservation of physical infrastructure subject the exercise of this authority to tests of good reason.
Constrained by such, exercise of the authority is simply an action, among many other possible actions that could be more favorable to the Webbs.
The argument is made that the cost of renovating any of the buildings is high, and prohibitive of reasonable financial return because the tenant lease rates that would be required to offset the investment exceed current market rates at other benchmarked properties downtown.
There is an error in this argument, as follows:
The cost of renovation will be equal to or less than the cost of new construction at Centre Pointe. The projected tenant lease rates within the Centre Pointe development also exceed current market rates at those same benchmarked properties, by design. The development plan for Centre Pointe justifies project investment because of a projected increase in lease rates relative to other downtown properties.
Return on investment feasibility of renovation should be based on projected lease rates of the renovated buildings after they are included as an integral part of the Centre Pointe development. Renovation ROI should not be based on projected lease rates for the buildings alone without construction of the rest of the Centre Pointe project.
A fair evaluation of the financial return on renovation investment as part of Centre Pointe allows an apples to apples comparison. And it makes sense.
If the renovations are properly designed as an integral part of the Centre Pointe high rise tower, its condominiums, hotel, and retail spaces, the renovated Dame and Rosenberg buildings would have at least an even chance of commanding a premium lease rate even in addition to the already increased lease rates for the project as a whole relative to other properties.
It is easy to imagine that a number of the sought after national retailers and boutique retailers would pay the lease rate projected for Center Pointe PLUS a premium for occupying the premium renovated space inside the Dame building. Likewise, a renovated Rosenberg building could lease to the hotel restaurant, or to an independent restaurant serving hotel guests who would quite enjoy the charm of the old building and its history, particularly if they had the option to dine in an outdoor patio giving them a view of the Rosenberg building together with the new project and tower.
What would be wrong with that and who would be unhappy with it?
Centre Pointe moves ahead in substantial entirety, and a few of the existing buildings are renovated and integrated into the project. Everyone gets what they want. The city preserves important parts of its heritage. The value of the project is increased along with the beauty of it. The developers make more money.
If the Review Board follows its own rules I do not see how an appeal will not win if it is filed. But regardless of those decisions, the real decision is the Webbs’.
There is more than special right, power, or privilege involved in the decision. Beyond prerogative, there is historic value substantial enough in several of the buildings to invoke conservative ideals of civic responsibility for cultural continuity over long periods of time.
Serious reflection on this responsibility subjects the decision to demolish to tests of good reason.
The idea of demolishing all of the buildings fails those tests because there is no good reason.
On the contrary, there are many good reasons for restoring some of the buildings. Many of those reasons actually lead to greater value and greater financial return for the Webbs.
Because of this, I still believe that the Webbs ultimately will decide not to demolish all of the buildings and that they will renovate and integrate several of them into the Centre Pointe project.
July 2, 2008 at 10:20 am
Tim says “However, the drafter of the TIF statute in Kentucky, Mr. Farris, has thoroughly explained the way a TIF works and the fact that there is no downside to the public. He openly endorses its use for the Centrepointe project. The Jim Gray’s of the world have successfully used and confused the public to delay this project under the flag of “public interest”. The reality is that with TIF off the table, Gray and his followers must now reveal their true motivation and can’t rely on the banner of public interest.”
The assertion that TIF has no downside to the public is an outright lie! It is nothing more than a handout of taxpayer money to developers that should be used on the proper functions of government. Preventing this kind of corruption is precisely in the public interest and Jim Gray and Dick DeCamp should be applauded for their efforts.
July 2, 2008 at 11:50 am
Dan,
Your statment resembles the mob mentality that has been touted by the preservationist horde all along. If that is true, why is the council begging the Webbs to apply for the TIF. The Webbs don’t need and don’t want the TIF. Smart people will educate themselves before following the word of others on such and imiportant matter. Don’t believe me, but at least stop being a sheep. If you have read the statute and listened to the former Finance Cabinet Secretary Farris and read articles about how the TIF is funded and what would happend should things go sour you wouldn’t have that opinion.
July 2, 2008 at 1:13 pm
If the market does not adequately support return on investment in the renovation of some of these buildings (which according to the board was the winning argument), then the market also does not support return on investment of Centre Pointe, whose costs are higher or similar and which operates under the same market conditions.
The answer of course is that Centre Pointe changes market conditions and projects higher lease rates than other properties downtown.
The argument for renovation of some of the buildings is that as an integral part of Centre Pointe, the renovated buildings would also command the same elevated lease rates as the rest of Centre Pointe. Therefore, financial return is possible, investment is justified, and there is no reason to demolish every building.
July 2, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Tim,
If the assertion that giving the Webbs $70 million in taxpayer money has “no downside to the public” then why stop at $70 million? Why not make it a $70 billion, or $70 trillion. You act as if TIF money just materializes out of the ether. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
If the council is begging the Webbs to apply for the TIF, then they need to be educated about the real implications of the TIF. I suspect that they have been listening to the BS that you and your ilk have been spreading.
You claim “the Webbs don’t need and don’t want the TIF”. They may or may not need it, but they most certainly want it and they said as much in the Courthouse Design Review Board meeting. With that claim you are moving from sophistry to outright falsehood.
You said, “If you have read the statute and listened to the former Finance Cabinet Secretary Farris and read articles about how the TIF is funded and what would happend should things go sour you wouldn’t have that opinion.” Get real! Read the articles that I posted above.
I find it interesting that the Webbs are cite market forces making it too costly to rennovate the buildings (despite all the tax incentives) when they are perfectly happy to distort market forces by accepting the TIF.
July 2, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Dan,
You indicate my claim is outright falsehood yet you display your ignorance by stating “why stop at $70 million?” If you had a sliver of understanding on this issue you would know that the amount of TIF money available is based on a formula that ties to the overall cost of the project. You would also know that the $70 million dollar figure translates into about $35 million in funds that can actually be put to use.
Also, I don’t know which hearing you were watching but the one I saw started off with Darby Turner stating the TIFF is not needed for the project. Yesterdays council work session included a statement by Turner that the Webbs would only consider applying for a TIF if the city really wanted them to. What was once an opportunity for the city to realize gains in public infrastructure has now all but disappeared because the TIF was used as a bludgeon by the likes of Vice-Mayor (but running for Mayor) Gray and his pal Dick “Lame Duck” Decamp (obviously looking for a legacy to provide meaning to his otherwise meaningless representation during his tenure on the council). Turner informed the council, much to Gray’s chagrin, that he discussed renovation of the Courthouse with Gray along with a number of other items regarding the TIF that could be used to benefit the city which arose from Centrepointe. Gray attempted to defuse and defray these discussions by saying they were included amongst other topics, but I believe the council now knows what a loose cannon Gray has become. The Webbs obviously don’t wish to pursue the TIF anylonger because of the taint left by Gray, who is abusing his power (evidenced by the attempt to bully the rest of the council in conspiring with Decamp to bring forth a silly resolution….which was ultimately defeated) to further his own personal zealotry. I believe it is an ethical violation for the Vice Mayor to testify in front of the CAD committee in favor of the preservationists, and then sit on the very council that appoints the committee and has the ability to put forth roadblocks to progress.
July 2, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Tim: “mob mentality” “preservationist horde”
Main Entry:
1mob Listen to the pronunciation of 1mob
Date:
1688
1: a large or disorderly crowd; especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action2: the lower classes of a community : masses, rabble3chiefly Australian : a flock, drove, or herd of animals4: a criminal set : gang; especially often capitalized : mafia 15chiefly British : a group of people : crowd
Let’s look at the behavioral facts with regard to some of the key words in the definition, mainly: “a capitalized gang, bent on destruction.”
Who does that apply to Tim, Preserve Lexington?
Preserve Lexington has argued in a careful and orderly way since the beginning that they are not against, the Webbs, are not against development, are not against the Centre Pointe project, but that they just want to see it modified to include as a part of Centre Pointe, the renovation and re-use, of some of this existing buildings, the ones that carry substantial cultural significance for which responsible members of conservative society are obliged to respect and conserve.
July 2, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Further gang mentality in your last post, Tim. Just attack and trash other people who want to be reasonable and want to see a better project by including some respect for conservation of our local cultural heritage in our building fabric, for which there is no valid reason for its total destruction on this block, which is being totally destroyed precisely because of gang mob mentality.
July 2, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Russian mafia invades Lexington with bulldozers to demolish block of buildings in downtown Lexington to build tower of million dollar condos for foreign visitors and compels city council to grovel and beg mafia to please take $70 million from us too.
Vice mayor Gray stands up for more reasonable behavior, demonstrating that he apparently is the only one on the council with real balls, for which he is beaten down by mafia thugs.
July 2, 2008 at 10:20 pm
“Wanting a project to be sufficiently finished before the 2010 games so that it does not look like it is a construction site does not mean that the 2010 games are the reason the project is being built. There is no inconsistency.”
Why would they care? There are construction projects going on everywhere in every city. So what if the giant white elephant isn’t finished? Seems to me it is far less logical to assume they are worried about a construction site looking like a construction site than they are getting it finished for the games because not only will they stand to capitalize on the games due to the proposed hotel at the Horse Park being canceled, based on all the occupancy data provided by the all the hotels/motels in town and by the Lexington Restaurant and Hotel Association (if that isn’t the correct name, you know who I mean….) combined with the lack of large scale tourism and enough wealthy Lexingtonians to make the project make any sense after the games are over, it seems that will be the only time they might possibly make any money.
If this town couldn’t support a project as small as Festival Market, what makes you think this monstrosity will succeed, especially in light of the fragile and failing economy as well as all the problems all the current and much smaller downtown condo developments are experiencing?
If things keep going the way they are and Israel attacks Iran, by the time the games get here, gas and travel expenses may be so high, there might not be that many people that come. Heck, there is a real chance the games might not even happen if things don’t improve drastically. You are aware the last World Games were the first time they even broke even aren’t you?
The fact that tourism in general is going downhill fast, further underscores the very real possibility such a ridiculously over scaled, over sized, and over priced project like BloatedPointe that is so dependent on tourism will succeed financially even more unlikely.
The bottom line is, Dudley said it wasn’t being driven by the games and yet says he wants it finished for the games. You can believe what you want, but to me that is not only a contradiction, under the circumstances it doesn’t make any sense at all. When are you people going to realize that Lexington is not that big and doesn’t have enough tourism and conventions to achieve more than a best occupancy rate of 60% among the existing, much more reasonably priced hotels and motels?
July 2, 2008 at 10:26 pm
“John57,
You’ve previously posted under a different name haven’t you? Ad hominem?”
It’s quite simple really Tim. Tom’s blog doesn’t require “registering” to comment. Other articles do. I used John57 when I registered and being somewhat in a hurry at times, I forget where I’m posting. However, it is very obvious I wasn’t trying to “disguise” who I am as you have proven. I am making an effort to just use the same name from now on. I hope that meets with your personal approval……..
July 3, 2008 at 10:21 am
Tim,
Tax Increment Financing was originally created with the goal of renovating blighted neighborhoods. While the block in question is certainly not in great shape, it is not in a blighted neighborhood. That is prime real estate. Of course the Centre Pointe development will generate more money in property taxes than what is currently there so the claim that the city won’t lose any money if Centre Pointe fails is a moot point. Under the TIF this additional tax revenue would go back to the developer. Why should it? How is this anything other than a give away of taxpayer money to a wealthy developer? If you want to argue that we as a city should just put the Webbs on the dole, you should just argue that point directly.
Where does the city make up for that lost revenue that went to the developer? With higher taxes for everyone else. This has happened time and time again where ever TIF has been used. If you would take time out from hyperventilating and name calling to read the articles I posted earlier you would understand this.
Also, if the Webbs had never wanted TIF money to begin with we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Their shenanigans at the courthouse review board and their lackey Farris giving a very distorted view of TIF to the council is nothing more than a bunch of posturing. They want it to look like the city is just forcing them to accept all these millions. The point is that the Webbs think they can milk the city for $70 million. Hard to blame them if the city is dumb enough to give it to them.
July 3, 2008 at 10:36 am
John57, let’s keep this simple and take out the elevated emotions that you’re personally experiencing from this particular project. Nothing at all being emotional and passionate about an issue. That is great and truly commendable. But I was not expressing my personal opinion on this project, defending Mr. Webb, spinning comments, representing a group of “people like me and Tim (whatever that means), choosing to use personal insults and misrepresentations. In fact, I pretty sure that anyone “coming on here” would agree.
I pointed out the poor correlation used to substantiate your claim that Mr. Webb is a hypocrite and double talker. Just because Mr. Webb would like to see the project finished by the 2010 Games doesn’t mean it alters his original and main goal of getting the project done. For example, the people whose main goal is to ultimately see that the project is not done, would like to see that happen sooner than later (like tomorrow instead of a month). But that is simply a desire that is not as important as the main goal. Tiger Woods won the US Open but would have liked to have wrapped it on Sunday instead of another 19 holes of golf on a painful knee on Monday…and that desire as such would not make him a hypocrite or contradictory if he had stated that desire on Sunday morning.
You are jumping to conclusions about Mr. Webb’s stated intentions regarding the 2010 Games and deadlines. You need to fill that gap with better substantiated examples and facts (and you certainly may be able to…I wouldn’t know). But so far your leaps were only being filled with some side shots of insulting and labeling of others that is likely because of your unbridled passion against this project which is making you rant whether you realize it or not. I would opine that you are a bright and very knowledgeable person who is getting a tad distracted and overreaching in your arguments.
So, no, Dudley Webb is not a hypocrite or double talker based on your rant.
July 5, 2008 at 12:57 pm
JackH, I pointed out specifically where you did in fact misstate my comments. As far as what Webb said, you have your opinion, I have mine. I stated the reasons for my opinion and provided the rationale and logic behind them, all of which you chose to completely ignore. Instead, you continue to label my comments as “rants” which is a rather self serving declaration considering you didn’t have the temerity to actually refute any of my positions. Yes, I am vehemently opposed to this project, and considering the Webbs history of doing business in Lexington, I am even more suspect.
As for your comment the “main goal” is to get the project finished, I would suggest that is another self serving argument that doesn’t address any of the realities of why this project just plain doesn’t make sense. I would suggest “making money” off the project is in fact the main goal and the Webbs are showing every day just how “driven” they are to do that. As I stated, getting the project done for the World Games is the greatest chance for the project to actually make any money for all the reasons I listed, again, none of which you refute.
I would suggest instead of using innuendo and personal attacks labeling my comments “ranting” you consider actually addressing the substance of the many points I have raised and provide examples of which of my comments you consider unsubstantiated and why. While you’re at it, why don’t you provide an argument why it is you that is not “jumping to conclusions” about the Webb’s motivations other than your misguided golf metaphor which really has no relevance to the discussion or points I raised. Golf isn’t a metaphor for everything in life and perhaps if you realized that, you would be better able to refute my actual arguments…
July 22, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Rob and John 57,
You lose.