Comments on: “Economic development” grants leave empty storefronts

By: Melissa

Melissa — Thu, 13 May 2010 19:25:51 +0000

I would like to see this get more attention. If you search the Secretary of State website, Mr. Charity has 25 LLCs. Not all of these are active or in good standing but REALLY? 25 LLCs? How many of those received grant dollars for business that are non-existent.
It is sickening to think of the businesses who have BEGGED Mr. Charity to redevelop so they can come back to this location. The owner of the Rockery Meme’s Market wanted to develop the entire space just for his store.
There are two high schools in the backyard — one of which is a Recovery School — talk about just leaving money on the table. There’s no reason this property should still be sitting vacant. Investors have begged Mr. Charity to buy this property (I being one of them.) I have a neighborhood investment group who is ready to act.
At the March blight meeting, all of the 2nd notices were “missing” from the files for this property. Again – questionable?
I appreciate FOX shedding some light on the case. Please help shed more. The pressure needs to be put on Mr, Charity to act or sell. There’s no reason that five years later this PRIME piece of real estate is sitting as studs. This isn’t in the middle of nowhere. It is in a Recovery School District surrounded by successful neighborhoods, universities and businesses. It’s a shame the the reason the smaller commercial landscapes aren’t coming back is because this piece of property still sits vacant. When this comes back – you can bet the locations surrounding it will follow.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:01:17 +0000

The market rewards business owners who devote their time and energies to finding out what the public needs, and delivering it to them as effectively and efficiently as possible. Programs like this reward “business owners” who devote their time and energies to working political connections, donating to campaigns, and learning how to game the system.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:07:08 +0000

Oh, and Karen, great reporting! So rare these days when media regurgitate press releases and talking points without question.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:06:02 +0000

Is it that hard to imagine that the taxpayers might have made better, more effective use of that money if they were allowed to keep it? Certainly we need taxes for police, fire and infrastructure etc. But these sort of funds are self licking ice cream cones. Funds are not disbursed fairly or satisfactorily? Hire a an auditor, create a council to oversee it and so on. By the time we are done it costs 3 dollars to get 1 to some business about which all the non recipients will have issue.

By: jeffrey

jeffrey — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:41:22 +0000

Charity would not speak on the record for this story. Nash defended him, however, saying that Charity has spent the city award, plus much more, on “soft costs” associated with the project. Those include architect fees and permits from the city

Hey does that mean the city has actually recouped some of this outlay in permits fees? What category of economic activity does that sort of circular stimulus fall under? Would City Business consider it a “trend bucking” tool?

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:31:38 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by kareng: First article in The Lens http://bit.ly/8IxzOR...