The city is taking a second look at a tax abatement request for the historic Stokely-Van Camp building
at 941 N. Meridian St. Developer Buckingham Cos. bought the 114,000-square-foot building in February 2007 and began a $2.5-million
renovation. The firm won a letter of support for a tax abatement from former Mayor Bart Peterson's office but the deal was
never finalized. With much of the renovation work now done, Buckingham has revived its request for an 8-year abatement worth
about $115,500. The planning department pulled the item from last week's MDC meeting at the last minute so Mayor Greg Ballard
and his staff could have a look. A staff report on the abatement says it would create 18 new jobs and retain about 310. A
key question: whether all the jobs will be located at the downtown building, a city spokesman said. (Photo/DIG-B)
- Home
- NEWS
- REGIONAL
- THIS WEEK'S PAPER
- BLOGS
- Multimedia
- OPINION
- A&E
- LISTS
- PEOPLE
- EVENTS
- Classifieds
- Subscribe
Welcome to Property Lines, Indy's source for neighborhood real estate news. Your host is Scott Olson, IBJ's real estate beat
reporter. Edited by Cory Schouten.
The city is taking a second look at a tax abatement request for the historic Stokely-Van Camp building
at 941 N. Meridian St. Developer Buckingham Cos. bought the 114,000-square-foot building in February 2007 and began a $2.5-million
renovation. The firm won a letter of support for a tax abatement from former Mayor Bart Peterson's office but the deal was
never finalized. With much of the renovation work now done, Buckingham has revived its request for an 8-year abatement worth
about $115,500. The planning department pulled the item from last week's MDC meeting at the last minute so Mayor Greg Ballard
and his staff could have a look. A staff report on the abatement says it would create 18 new jobs and retain about 310. A
key question: whether all the jobs will be located at the downtown building, a city spokesman said. (Photo/DIG-B)
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Irvington is up and coming much like Fountain Square. We would love to have something like this in our neighborhood!
-
Why do we care who has submitted proposals if we can't review the proposals? It's publicly owned land, but the public has zero say in what gets chosen to be built there. Yep, that sounds about right.
-
Perhaps May 21 is "Evangelical Day" over at the IBJ?
-
I don't know what's more depressing: that this passes for a defensible elective in a publicly funded SCIENCE class, or that more than half of the posters here are defending this charlatan. Intelligent design is creationism. Creationism is religion. Yes, we have freedom of religion, which deserves to be protected. Now someone kindly show Professor Hedin his freedom by escorting him over to the Religion department at BSU. Carry on.
-
I hope people realize that the 'vocal' opposition at the meeting represent the minority of people against this project. As with any controversial project - those who don't want it are the loudest, while those who like it or really don't care one way or the other don't come to such meetings. Unfortunately the same may be true of the survey now being offered by the BRVA. I live less than a 5 minute walk from BR Avenue and can tell you that I and most of my neighbors are support this exciting project, or are ambivalent. And how great that it includes quality apartments - something that BR sorely lacks. This is a first class opportunity that we should embrace (and no, I'm not with the BRVA or the developer.) As for the fellow who owns the Good Earth store, if he doesn't want competition then let him pull together his own investors and out bid Whole Foods to operate the proposed grocery component! Come on folks - let's move ahead.
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
IBJ Conversations
11 Comments
Add Comment
The fact is that Buckingham continued with their project timeline with the knowledge and assurance that the investment had been reviewed and would continue to be supported by the City. The resolution process was put on hold due to the transition of administrations.
When companies anticipate an abatement in their favor, they don't leave that value off the total cost of the project and determining whether or not it will be a good deal, especially for funds down the road to afford the property. If they were truly concerned about that abatement in their internal Cost-Benefit Analysis, then they would have not proceeded with the project until receiving it.
Just as homeowners build into their budgeting a potential reduction in property taxes so do these companies. If they went ahead with the project and used the abatement in their estimates as the project being feasible, and continued without the abatement - that's their fault. The abatement should not be given after the fact.
Yes, the construction project is nearly complete; however, the hiring component is not. The company can still argue (and this really for the city to scrutinize and determine if its true or not) that it won't hire or retain as many employees unless it receives the abatement.
If Buckingham can argue that it will create and maintain jobs, then it has an argument to support asking for an abatement--and the construction project is not relevant to making a determination about the abatement. The city needs to determine if the number and quality of the jobs to be created and maintained justifies granting the abatement.
I don't think it matters what the last administration told them. If the abatement was that important, they wouldn't have done the project without it having it inked. If the abatement is rejected, each of the remainder of property tax payers in Marion County can save about 50 cents. Imagine how fast those amounts would add up, if the City would simply turn down more of these.