Barnes Ave property owner settlements

[Clipper]

There is an article in the OD this morning pertaining to the State of New York proposed settlements with the property owners displaced when the Barnes Ave bridge was closed. www.uticaod.com/topstories/x1388106726/State-offers-1-07M-to-Barnes-Ave-businesses

A comment at the bottom of the article caught my eye. CWSI was given property on Barnes Ave to resolve a problem with them parking their garbage trucks on Belle Ave. In the article the state says because the CWSI site was within the city limits, it is up to the city to "compensate" CWSI for the loss of the Barnes Ave site. ("According to the state, the city of Utica is responsible for compensating Controlled Waste Systems Inc. because its truck terminal fell within the city limits. Those records were not immediately available and the company did not return several calls for comment.")

I could be incorrect, but does that mean that your city government GAVE the company one parcel of land, and now due to circumstances beyond the control of the city, YOU the city taxpayers are going to actually PAY for this company to purchase a new parcel to relocate their business to?

I think that if I lived there, and this information is accurate, I would be at a common council meeting or in Roefaro's office, asking who knows who and how does one get such a sweet real estate deal at the expense of the taxpayers. I am not surprised that nobody at city hall or the CWSI offices wants to address these questions to reporters. Something about that whole concept smells worse than any garbage trucks parked on Belle Ave.

Maybe Strikeslip can shed some light on the issue. How about it Strike?

[firstamendment]

Of interest, what did the City of Utica do with the couple million $$ it received to fix that bridge a few years ago?

[Clipper]

I am not there and don't get ALL the news, but yes, you are correct. That IS of interest if anyone in the city even cares any more what happens to their money. I CARE and I am in Tennessee. WHY? Because if the money they received to fix the bridge was federal funding, we ALL have a vested interest in the answers.

[strikeslip]

Sorry clipper . . . I don't have much more information on this issue than has been in the newspaper.

What is interesting is the difference in treatment between Utica and its suburb by the state. Businesses that have been paying taxes for years to Marcy get bought out by the state. A business that, perhaps, hasn't been there long enough to pay any taxes to the city of utica has to be paid off by the taxpayers of Utica.

[Clipper]

Hmm. That is another point to ponder Strikeslip. That might have been my next question. Why were Marcy business's getting the deal from the state and not a city business. That is strange.

If the business didn't qualify for the state settlement, what is it that qualifies it for the city taxpayers to pay them? It's not like the business is not a profitable business or that they will go under if they are not bailed out. Nor is it a case where city taxpayers paying the freight is going to save or create any new jobs.