Left In Lowell

A Garage We Cannot Afford

18 Responses to “A Garage We Cannot Afford”

1. -b Says:
   April 27th, 2006 at 12:02 pm

   So true… It seems like the majority was voting for progress for the sake of progress. The project seems like it could become a real black hole, with the residents downtown paying the bill.

   I also agree with you about the garages. While the garages are much improved, I try to search out a meter, now that the city has gotten serious about using the garages as a revenue source.

2. Jim Says:
   April 27th, 2006 at 12:37 pm

   You make a good point. Why not take some time and put it back out for bid until they get a reasonable price?

3. Lynne Says:
   April 27th, 2006 at 2:52 pm

   Or scale down the project. Elliot asked a good question…could it be a smaller garage? Or a little less fancy in one area or another?

   I don’t see how just construction materials could account for the whole increased cost. I know materials are going up, but…that much?

   I also found it interesting that the councilors (minus Elliot, Martin, and Donoghue) voted up the 4.5M bond, but in the face of angry residents at the public hearing, voted down the means to fund it (or rather, voted to delay voting). That spoke volumes. If the project were so noble as all that, they wouldn’t have quibbled on the funding. Notice the # of coucilors who said they wouldn’t support using general revenue.

   Also, the concept of getting a report detailing taking this or that projected increase out - math is math. Take out the increase on the rented spaces for residents, you have less to fund the new project. I don’t know where they think that money is going to come from.

   Bottom line is, a lot of people are worried this is a boondoggle of a project which will just keep going up in cost. Obviously you can expect some increase (either site issues or construction materials will cause increases), but this being the second major increase and the thing just being in design phase, well.

4. waittilnextyr Says:
   April 27th, 2006 at 4:24 pm

   It was obvious to some people (one councilor, I believe) that this was a black hole-in-waiting when it was first proposed, and those fears are being realized now, and as Lynne points out, before a shovel has hit the ground.

   A complicating factor is tying the garage spaces to purchasing the current properties, as apparently Lichoulas has a proposal on the table that looks for a reduced number of free spaces for a smaller period than was originally negotiated by the CM, and disapproved by the CC. No garage, no deal.

   Has there ever been a financial analysis done that shows that this garage is self-supporting over its lifetime? It appears that other garages and street parking are being asked to pay the bill. If we are going to put $25M plus operating costs into the garage, is the revenue from the garage and its contribution to tax base expansion (a subjective assessment) enough to pay back the bills in constant dollar terms? If not, let’s not make the investment.

5. Dan. M Says:
   April 27th, 2006 at 4:42 pm

   I wish the council would try to think out of the box… For instance, When I was sitting there at the meeting listening to the debate etc, my first thought was “why not sell the naming rights” like pro teams. Something like “Butler bank Parking garage, or Enterprise Bank garage, something that brings in blind revunue. Thats worth 500,000 over 10 years or so. Or, make it a parking lot, they said they could fit 275 single car spots.. well make the 275, and then install the car lifts that are used throughout Boston and NY. I was at Harvard University, they have a small garage there, maybe 100 spaces. But, they use these lifts, and it doubles the capacity, without doubling the size.. 550 spaces.

6. Mike Says:
   April 27th, 2006 at 6:17 pm

   I’m all for spending a little bit extra in that neighborhood. It’s a disaster down there. Do it and do it right. I have no problem if the people in Belvidere or the Highlands have to pay a little extra to see this part of town finally get some attention. I like the naming rights idea but everything in this town, including every street corner, is named after a late friend of a city councilor.

7. pete the pirate Says:
   April 27th, 2006 at 6:33 pm

   why don’t we get all the councilors together in a room where they can discuss the garage plan before they decide to borrow money. yeah, thats it, a meeting of the city council, i think it will work, and lets have it on tuesdays.

8. No one you know Says:
   April 27th, 2006 at 6:40 pm

   First, I have to disclose this. I commute to Boston every day and even though I work nights
   I pay $55 for the opportunity to park in the garage. No reserved space. The folks who work days
   have to pay $80 a month for the opportunity to drive around until a spot is open!

   So, do I think that an increase in parking in the garages, meters and hiking parking fines is
   justified? Yep! I know that we in Lowell are used to a quarter an hour in the garages, but
   are more than willing to pay $30 to park within walking distance of Fenway Park! From someone who
   works near Fenway I can assure you that those rates are for Game Day, but the rest of the time it’s
   $8 to $10 dollars a day. That would be at least $160 for a 4 week month if you had a sticker!

   I agree with the councilors who want to re-bid. Something isn’t right when 70 RFPs are sent out
   and only 2 are returned! Was there a problem with the RFPs? I disagree with the same councilors
   who suggested a surface lot in the meantime, as we know from the “temporary” bridge over the
   Merrimack, these things become permanent.

   I question the decision of the solicitor’s office re: keeping the Lichoulas offer under wraps. The
   newsletter already published the fact that Lichoulas had made the offer public to them, so is this
   another attempt at keeping the taxpayers in the dark?

   I don’t think naming rights on a parking garage will work, it would have worked for the ballpark
   and arena because they are sporting venues and will attract media attention, but a garage won’t.

   Dan M. raises a good point. Will this garage be self supporting? I personally think that it needs
   to have the first floor devoted to retail since much of the retail, businessess and industrial space
   in the city is being converted to high income housing. If the project does’t include retail then
   I think the whole project could become a white elephant.

   Just my $.02

9. JW Says:
   April 27th, 2006 at 9:58 pm

   My big worry is that the city council is not telling us something about the Lichoulas deal.
   If it goes to court we might all be paying higher taxes for the next 30 years. 5M extra for
   the garage is nothing compare to what a court might award them. Wasn’t there a similar
   situation a few years ago?

10. Mike Says:
    April 27th, 2006 at 10:25 pm

    To me, Lichoulas coming with an 11th hour reduced offer tells you he’s not exactly counting on the court giving him the megabucks.

11. No one you know Says:
    April 27th, 2006 at 11:30 pm

    JW asks: “My big worry is that the city council is not telling us something about the Lichoulas deal.
    If it goes to court we might all be paying higher taxes for the next 30 years. 5M extra for
    the garage is nothing compare to what a court might award them. Wasn’t there a similar
    situation a few years ago”?

    I assume you mean the ED taking of the warehouse on Bridge Street that is now Kerouac Park? In
    that case the city manager (not Cox) got an evaluation from a friend that did not step foot in
    the building, but advised the city what to pay. It was litigated and the city had to pay millions
    of dollars because the “professional realtor” , a friend of the CM, the city hired, low balled big time!

    The fact that the local newletter claims Lichoulas came to them with the latest offer, but the
    solicitor doesn’t want to make it public confuses me. If Lichoulas went to the paper, then it is
    public! If the paper chooses not to publish then it confirms the fact that Wallace and his
    cronies are in bed with the administration!

12. No one you know Says:
    April 27th, 2006 at 11:37 pm

    One other thought about the Lichoulas deal. Cox wanted to settle. He tried very hard to
    come up with a deal but Lichoulas stonewalled him. It was not until the majority of the city
    council decided to move forward with E-D that Lichoulas decided to finally make a counter offer that
    according to the paper isn’t all that good. He gets free parking, back taxes forgiven and the city
    has to pay him 750K! Hell! Can I not pay my RE taxes and get a deal like that?

13. JW Says:
    April 28th, 2006 at 5:55 am

    I’m confused. I thought Cox made a deal with Lichouls and the council voted it down. Like Mike
    said, if he came back to the city with another reduced deal, surely he would have accepted the
    first one.

14. No one you know Says:
    April 28th, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    Yes, Cox brokered a deal that the council shot down. The council then began the ED process.

    After the council shot down the Cox deal and began the ED process Lichoulas went to the Sun and
    apparently outlined a new offer.

    Tuesday the council voted to proceed with the ED but delayed action 30 days to see if Lichoulas
    is serious this time.

    The deal as outlined by our local newsletter still gives Lichoulas free parking for decades,
    forgives his back taxes and has the city paying him $750K! I didn’t see anywhere were it addressed
    the issue of his property being contaminated and who pays for the cleanup.

15. JW Says:
    April 28th, 2006 at 7:23 pm

    “No one you know” if you would like to continue this conversation over email,
    I’m “j.wright1[at]yahoo.com” it seems like you are very aware of the issues and
    this is a tough way to ask questions.

    I guess I’m wondering why the council keeps extending things? If I remember correctly,
    the Frudberg (?) property nearby had less land and the city paid much more for it. If he
    goes to court, couldn’t he get much more? The council is so secretive. Why arn’t they telling
    us the full story? They took the other land in the area, why not his? Is Lichouls setting us
    up for a big suit? Cox seemed like a good manager to me, but I really don’t know. Why was he
    negotiating for so long, and why does the council keep extending? Something is missing in the
    equation.

16. No one you know Says:
    April 28th, 2006 at 9:53 pm

    JW
    Actually my information comes from reading the newsletter, and watching the council meetings.
    I don’t think the council is secretive about this, they are applying pressure on Lichoulas and
    according to Kendal Wallace’s article it seems to be working.

    It seems to me that if Lichoulas is making an offer like this then the independent assessment
    was not in his favor. Both parties, the city and Lichoulas had the property assessed.

    The council delayed the ED taking for 30 days, at least IMO, to see if Lichoulas was serious and
    would come back with a better offer.

    If the city has to go the ED route it will cost a lot of money, on the other hand given what
    Lichoulas owes in back taxes and penalties a deal could be worked out, but IMO such a deal
    should allow him to walk away, but nothing else, no parking, no cash.

    IMO.

17. JW Says:
    April 29th, 2006 at 6:10 am

    I hear you, but given the potential cost of a taking and the unknown cost of a jury award
    wouldn’t the city be better off giving Lichoulas some parking and making a deal. The garage
    is going to be built regardless, and giving some spaces would not increase the cost to the city.
    The garage will probably half vacent anyway. I looked back at the articles, and if I understand
    them correctly, the cash payment would go towards back taxes, and environmental cleanup anyway.
    Even if there was something left over, it would cost all of us (taxpayers) at least $750K in legal
    bills. The council might be playing with fire here. Given what has happened in the past, I have
    little faith in the valuation that the city has presented. Afterall, it was under Cox that the valuation
    was made. Isn’t that why the council fired him– for making too many mistakes.

18. waittilnextyr Says:
    April 29th, 2006 at 8:21 am

    “I looked back at the articles, and if I understand them correctly, the cash payment would go towards back taxes, and environmental cleanup anyway.”

    If these were true, the “deal” would be more palatable. However, you may be reading more into what has been leaked out than is there. What if the $750K was in addition to tax forgiveness, and what if environmental clean-up responsibility was transferred to the city along with the title?

Leave a Reply