• The Rochesterian in Your Inbox:

    Join 625 other subscribers



Maybe I missed something.

For years now, local media, including this blog, have shared renderings of a dense housing, retail and hotel development at the Port of Rochester. The media also extensively reported on a groundbreaking celebration of a $20 million marina designed to spur this development.

This was the plan all along!

Let’s discuss some of the major concerns that have arisen, now that the city has chosen a developer for the site.

1. Is there are a market for this type of development, including very expensive condos?

The developer, Edgewater Resources, says in its proposal that it will market the units to young professionals and empty nesters:

Sales prices will start at $199,000 for an 800sf one bedroom unit, $349,000 for a 1,100sf two bedroom unit, and $599,000 for a 2,200sf three-bedroom units. Prices will increase based on the floor (higher floors will command higher prices), views, and amenities. Penthouse units will range from $900,000 – $1.2 million.

On young professionals:

The young professionals are a group of highly
educated successful younger professionals looking for a unique urban lifestyle that combines the convenience of a low maintenance/high service home with a walkable urban environment filled with local shops and restaurants. This group generally has yet to start a family and is often more focused on convenience, amenities, and location rather than second
bedrooms and extra space. Located within walking distance of Ontario Beach Park, the pier, Genesee Riverway Trail, and the new Port of Rochester Marina and promenade, Waterfront Rochester will provide a live/work/play lifestyle unavailable anywhere else in Rochester.

On empty nesters:

Coupled with views of the lake and convenient access to boating, the beach, and local restaurants, we believe this market will be very interested in Waterfront Rochester, particularly since there are no similar homes or condominiums available in this area. The resort rental condominiums are conveniently located in the project so that when the children of the empty-nesters come to visit, they can stay in the adjoining hotel or rent a resort condominium for an extended stay.

Empty nesters and young professionals are driving this type of housing. They don’t have children and they don’t want houses in the suburbs. We’ve already seen these market segments drive new housing downtown. That new downtown housing isn’t cheap. See the Sagamore, Capron Lofts, Temple Building, Chevy Place, H.H. Warner, Corn Hill Landing and Erie Harbor to get an idea of rents and sale prices. If empty nesters and young professionals can be lured to the port, this could very well work.

Why would anyone want to live at the port? Have you checked condo prices on the bay? Beach Ave. real estate? Offer a quality waterfront project and people will pay big bucks.

2. Low income housing is part of this proposal?

I don’t see “low-income” anywhere in this proposal. The developer makes reference to “affordable” units on the lower floors, similar to The Mills at High Falls. Affordable housing is not the same as low income housing. One of the Edgewater partners worked on The Mills, where there are units set aside for people who make 50, 60 and 90 percent of the area media income. The median household income in Monroe County is $52,700. Rents at The Mills are between $525 and $1,090. This is a true mixed-income project, one many of us could qualify to call home.

Another example of a mixed income project is Erie Harbor, where most apartments are renting for more than $1,000. A couple dozen of the 130 units are affordable. There’s a low-income high-rise right next door. That isn’t deterring people from moving into the expensive units.

If developers want city and county handouts – and they all do – they often have to agree to make their projects accessible to all. College Town will also have a handful of affordable units.

3. About those tax subsidies…This will be another fast ferry!

The subsidies are coming in the form of the city building the marina and putting in the infrastructure. The city is laying the groundwork for this project, as it did with Corn Hill Landing and Brooks Landing. There will be additional expenses, if the city gives the developer a break on the land and the project gets tax incentives from COMIDA.

What are the risks? The risk would be the marina is empty and no one wants to move into the apartments. The port landscape would be permanently altered for something that didn’t live up to expectations.

The possible benefits are a return to the glory days of the port, when it was alive with people and businesses. The city and county would get lots of tax revenue from residents, businesses and tourists.

The port is a beach, a boardwalk, a smattering of business and a giant parking that sits empty most of the year.

4. Parking!!!!!!!!

The development would have its own parking, which would include underground spaces.

Is this what we want for the port?

Is this what we want for the port?

Public parking spaces would be greatly diminished under the plan. According to the city’s environmental impact statement, 452 parking spaces would disappear in Phase I of the development. There would be 735 public parking spaces left. On Friday nights, the peak demand for parking was 710 spaces, so there would be enough parking. On Saturdays, peak demand was 786 spaces, so there would be a deficit of 51 spaces.

When the project is fully developed, there will be 516 public parking spots. There will be anticipated shortfall of 200-270 spaces on the highest-demand days and nights.

Special events pose a challenge, as 1,700 cars try to cram into the lots. That’s already a big issue, especially on Wednesday nights for the Concerts at the Shore.

The parking study’s authors state the obvious:

“As development in the Port area continues, the need for more remote parking and frequent transit buses operating on established routes with direct service to the port will increase.”

The study suggests using high tech systems on the roadways leading into the port to alert drivers about parking and traffic conditions, and direct them to shuttle lots.

Rochester, we have a choice. We can keep sea of asphalt at the port to make sure you get a parking spot on the 10 days a year the port parking is at capacity. Or we can make the port a place where there’s demand more than 10 days a year.


The port parking lots are almost never full!

The port parking lots are almost never full!


5. Traffic!!!!!!!!!!!

Bergmann’s traffic study found entries to the port will continue to operate at a good level of service when the project is built out in 2020:

“The number of new trips on the roadway system generated by new development at the Port is projected to be 552, 218 and 562 during the Friday 6:30-7:30 p.m. peak, the Friday 8:30-9:30 p.m. peak and the Saturday 3:30-4:30 p.m. respectively.


Latta Road west of Lake Avenue is expected to carry 5% of the new traffic, 20% on the Lake Ontario State Parkway west of Lake Avenue, 30% on the Lake Ontario State Parkway east of Lake Avenue and the remaining 35% on Lake Avenue south of the Lake Ontario State Parkway.

The study didn’t find much difference in traffic flow whether this thing is built or not, although it did suggest some signal timing changes.

5. It’s too dense and it’s ugly.

I think we need to see more from the developer. The renderings look very crude. I can’t say I’m a huge fan of the architecture, but that’s where the planning and design process plays a role. The public will also be able to weigh in.

The scale seems daunting. But there needs to be a critical mass to make the whole thing work.


Links of the Day:


– If New York’s standardized tests are so wonderful, release all of the questions and let the public decide.

– Frontier spend $326 million to improve Internet speeds in Upstate New York.

– Buffalo is making a canal replica the focus of downtown development.

– There is no war on cars. But should there be?

– Amazing graphic of how Americans die.

– Golf is dying. Would bigger holes attract players?

– A college president is worried students will take selfies with him as he hands them their diplomas.

– Lead story on D&C website this morning was about burying a statue to help sell your home.

31 Responses to In Defense of the Port Project

  1. April 19, 2014 at 12:29 pm BullsLawDan responds:

    In comparison to the fast ferry, which was an ill-conceived idea to make Rochester a tourist destination (or really a tourist flow-through between Toronto and points south), this is a plan for people to live and work in our area.

    Rochester needs to drop efforts to increase tourism. Our weather and our location mean we will never be Orlando. Instead, focus efforts on being a place where people want to live and work the 51 weeks of the year they’re NOT on vacation. This development plan is imperfect, but at least it’s a nod in that direction.

  2. April 19, 2014 at 12:33 pm Jim Mayer responds:

    Thank you Rachel. I’ve known about the general thrust of this development for a long time and I don’t live in Charlotte (I live in Erie Harbor, actually). It seems unbelievable to me that so many people feel like this was a surprise foisted on them by an arrogant city administration.

    On the design, after looking at both of the competing plans, I actually prefer the Edgewater design. The tower and pedestal model has been used successfully in Vancouver for years and, because there are two-story townhouses and retail on the street, should be less imposing than a four-story building built to the curb. Also, the parking in the Edgewater design is much better… it’s pretty much all under the towers.

  3. April 19, 2014 at 12:33 pm dennis responds:

    This HIGH density project transfers a regional “public” asset into the hands of a private developer and a couple hundred new residents…and the public is fronting twenty plus million dollars to encourage it! It makes NO SENSE! Why would I want to visit the port/beach/pier with very limited parking and much more congestion? This project destroys a public asset …it does not enhance it. Again the only beneficiaries are the private developer and a few hundred people who rent/own condos in this project. They call this “progress”?

    • April 22, 2014 at 7:27 pm Rachel Barnhart responds:

      The public asset it destroys is a huge parking lot. Access to the boardwalk/river will remain.

      • April 22, 2014 at 10:18 pm dennis responds:

        The public asset is BOTH the waterfront amenities AND public parking. What good is an asset if you do NOT have access to it? This project gives priority access to the developer and the condo owners…NOT the general public.

        Selling off the parking lot does NOT benefit the public only the condo owners and yacht owners. Less parking means less pubic visits to the pier/port/beach and boardwalk.

        Public money should go towards vastly improving the pubic assets like the pier and beach and boardwalk….NOT spending tens of millions of dollars on a semi-private yacht basin for a hand full of rich people! This project make absolutely no economic sense!

  4. To suggest Charlotte isn’t a suburb is simply semantics, the only reason that it is part of the city is because of an annexation in 1916… you could live on the most suburb-y part of Jefferson and just as close to downtown as in Charlotte. Charlotte is suburban development plain and simply, which you’ve repeatedly been against (and in this case, I would agree with you if you were against this, this isn’t NYC, who is going to spend $200k on a 800 sqft 1 bdrm condo to be 15min from downtown when they could spend the same on a 3bdr house in Pittsford or Brighton essentially the same distance from the inner city?)

  5. April 19, 2014 at 12:44 pm dew4794 responds:

    I just heard Jane Flasch, channel 10 news, say “low income housing” as well as the Mayor. Again what has aggregated so many people is the process by which Mayor Warren operates by unilateral decision. This Port Project looks like a done deal.

  6. April 19, 2014 at 12:52 pm RaChaCha responds:

    Nice analysis! I’ve seen your tweets about negative reactions to this project, but am not sure where to read some of that reaction for myself (although I can get a sense of that reaction by your points in response). Can you recommend a link where I could read some of that reaction?

    Also, regarding parking and traffic, I’m surprised/not surprised to not hear any mention in these plans (unless I missed it) of even studying use of the rail line to the port for excursion/event rail — let alone rail transit. It seems like yet another example in Rochester of overlooking opportunities for rail transit (perhaps starting on a small scale with excursion rail) that are staring the community in the face. Other examples being the subway tunnel, rail transit between DT and the University and RIT, and rail excursions between the villages along the canal corridor.

  7. April 19, 2014 at 1:45 pm Orielly responds:

    Why are people against this? OH Gee I don’t know, maybe the city’s “success” in past development projects- see High Falls, Past Port of Roch Development(Fast Ferry), new city development tax breaks for Dutch Summers etc.

    For the 1000th time, I thought the city had no money?

    And then there is the Mayor picking the big tower vs the modest one. What one would you pick with no money and a deficit budget? I think that concept is called fiscal responsibility. The right choice would be don’t spend it till you have it.

    And of course there is COMIDA picking winners and losers in the area. Who are they to decide? If you owned a business in the area you’ll pay tax like you have for years but Competitors will come in and “someone” will enjoy the benefit of paying no tax. But you still will pay, but now you can pay to support them, your competitors.

    How about the parking? 1000s go down to Charlotte on Wednesday’s, this rejects them, they aren’t important right.

    Who will pay 600k for a condo in Roch? Few. Who will do it in Charlotte with 80K condo’s below you?
    Who will purchase a condo at 600K when there are fights and gangs in Charlotte on a regular basis now in the summer? (oh don’t mention that)

    Why did a non Rochester developer get the deal and the tax breaks? They couldn’t find someone in Roch that could make it work and be the developer? Didn’t the UR do the same thing in College town,- pick a Cleveland based developer to enjoy the Tax breaks and take the profits from this local taxpayer funded endeavor, out of this area?

    Traffic- isn’t the proposal your backing Ms Barnhart to reduce traffic lanes on Lake Ave therefore reducing traffic flow? Seems to be a mixed message on that one.

    There are people who don’t want to live in the burbs and have money. No kidding. For all the city condo and lofts developed and sold they are a pittance in number compared to the number of new build homes and current homes being sold in the burbs. There is no comparison in volume or dollar spent. But that story does not fit the narrative.

    We’ve seen the city blow over a billion dollars in the last ten years on failed development – High falls, leads the list. SO we are all supposed to cheer this one? I don’t think so.

  8. April 19, 2014 at 2:42 pm Lincoln DeCoursey responds:

    I get it that young people with decent jobs may go for luxury rentals in the city, but I’m not sure whether they’ll have the cash, established credit, or inclination to actually buy. Nevermind the school issue, we’re talking about one- and two-bedroom units. Not too many twenty-somethings can buy a half-million dollar condo, or will have the inclination to do so knowing they’ll likely need to exit the property in perhaps five years as they start families.

    On one hand I feel that Rochester has neglected to build up its lakefront, or to value it to the extent that other cities value theirs. On the other hand I am reminded of lake effect snow and wind. A lakefront condo is a bit of a different thing than a downtown loft. Charlotte lacks the entertainment/restaurant density that is part of the draw for (the relevant portions of) downtown. And a whole additional district (Main & Clinton) is now spinning up in downtown to compete for the same empty-nesters and YPs anticipated to be drawn to the city life. Affluent people who move to the city by choice may prefer to stick with the downtown loft scene and, if they want to access the water, could rent a slip at the marina.

  9. April 19, 2014 at 3:09 pm Jim Mayer responds:

    I keep seeing people assume that the city is paying for this development. The city is building the marina, but the housing development is privately funded. The details are part of the proposal, which is publicly available (and has been for some time).

  10. April 19, 2014 at 3:24 pm theodore kumlander responds:

    empty nest. that is exactly what these condos will be. Lovely Warren has found her fast ferry.

    hello, there is no market for over priced to small condos in Charlotte. if there was they would have been built a long time ago, and they were not.

    Has the Hyatt Regency ever been wildly profitable? The only person who will be making money on this will be the Builder.

  11. this hole development is in the wrong place of the city I can see the marina but not the high rise or hoetel also there taking away from all fun and nite life that use to be I personally think there going to redevelop the whole place no more marrey go round no more pier no more board walk they reined this place

  12. Why would anyone drop hundreds of thousands of dollars to live on a body of water you can’t swim in? If I lived near a Great Lake I would want to be able to swim in it.

  13. April 19, 2014 at 4:45 pm Orielly responds:

    Yea love how the city isn’t paying for it.

    20M on a marina…. that will go over budget and will need yearly maintenance, dredging etc. (oh yea the city is then again competing with private, area tax paying slip owners, who can’t rent all their slips today) COMIDA is giving the taxes away, and the city will be doing millions in additional infrastructure work. (did you believe if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor too?)

    Yep its free won’t cost the taxpayer a dime.

  14. April 19, 2014 at 5:40 pm dennis responds:

    Nearly 500 parking spots will be eliminated from phase development. That means less people will have quick and easy access to the Beach/Pier/Port! Explain how this benefits the Port District?….spend $20 million on a new Marina (semi private yacht basin that benefit a few rich people) and infrastructure specifically for the private developer and the city gets less visitors to the Port District! Is this Economic Development? Its an economic MISTAKE.

    Also expect that within a year or two…the city will need to spend BIG money on developing a multi-level parking garage to recapture the lost parking. This will cost the city a minimum of $20 million and then expect the city to charge to Park. Again…how will this benefit the “public”? more pubic dollars subsidizing a private developer….less parking spots for regional residents/tourist…more congestion…and charging the pubic parking fees to utilize a public asset! Again…how does this project “benefit” the public?

    I want to spend public dollars to enhance regional public assets. I have no problem spending tens of millions of dollars…but any improvement MUST benefit the general public …not just a handful of condo owners and an out-of-state developer! This project MUST be stopped…it will have a permanent negative impact on one of only a few valuable waterfront pubic spaces in our region.

  15. April 19, 2014 at 6:08 pm D A Miller responds:

    Rachel, as stated on your Fb page, you are missing many things regarding your analysis on the Port of Rochester project.

    You are right, there have been many shared iterations of this plan for the Port. None of which the Charlotte Community embraced. It started with a plan by the consultant Sasaki that was even much more intense than the current plan and brought a groundswell of opposition. So your statement that “This was the plan all along!” is just not true. This has been Edgewater’s plan all along and THAT’S the problem. How can you have the firm who was paid by the City to do the Master Plan, be the Developer? That sounds like a conflict to me. As for your major concerns:

    1. Edgewater is relying on a “purported” market study conducted at the time they were preparing the master plan for the City in 2008. How do I know that? Well because the plan they have submitted is virtually identical to the master plan prepared in 2008. Someone needs to tell them that since 2008, our country has gone through the biggest recession since the Great Depression! New construction has plummeted, not only here but all around the country. $199,000 for an 800 square foot apartment is $248.75 per square foot: twice the cost of the best condominium at Sagamore that you mentioned. $1.2 million will buy you a 10,000 square foot home on the lake or the bay.
    What has increased is new construction of apartments. Why? Because people still need a place to live, even though they can’t afford their homes. Here’s the problem in New York State: If you own an average home in New York State that is mortgage free, that home still costs you between $700 and $900 per month….WITHOUT A MORTGAGE! This is causing many people who could well afford to own a home start to see that renting brand new apartments with granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, tile bathrooms, and underground parking may not be such a bad idea. Hence, a new demographic has emerged for the “market rate” rental industry. That is why we think that rental apartments will succeed in Charlotte. This is not an “undesirable” neighbor, it’s just a neighbor that doesn’t feel like cutting the grass anymore.

    2. Affordable Housing: There are a number of types of housing that can be considered “Affordable” housing. This term gets manipulated for political reasons all the time. A market study can be done in just about any area around Rochester and even Monroe County and find a “high” demand for Affordable Housing. Particularly because the demand for Senior Housing has increased dramatically in the last ten years. You see, because seniors’ income almost always decreases once they become seniors, they fall within the definition of “Affordable Housing” prospects. I don’t think the Charlotte Community is against housing for the elderly, I think they are against housing for “trouble makers”, but of course you can’t say it that way.

    3. Subsidies are good when they accomplish their goals. They are bad when they don’t. Even PILOT agreements (i.e. The Congel Mall). Edgewater’s proposal is risky because of their financing strategy: EB-5. They do not have secure financing now, which is the reason for the 8 month negotiation period: not design revisions. They need the 8 months to sell their plan to an EB-5 syndication.

    4. Both plans addressed parking.

    5. Both plans addressed traffic.

    6. The Charlotte Community was always against the High Rise Design Concept. It’s really more about the look, than the view thing. Most high rise residential in Rochester, NY is managed by Rochester Housing Authority. We have very few “High Rise” for sale projects in Rochester, mostly conversions of existing office buildings that no longer work. This is a product that has not been embraced by Rochester buyers and will likely not work. They are virtually impossible to get financed conventionally, which is obviously the reason the Edgewater Team has suggested EB-5 financing. Under Edgewater’s plan, the public will no more be able to weigh in than they have in the last six years.

  16. April 19, 2014 at 8:27 pm Marcia King responds:

    At least the homeless in Charlotte will have a nice warm underground parking garage to sleep in during the winter…

  17. April 20, 2014 at 6:44 am Laurie Pieken responds:

    This port project is not a surprise for those in the Charlotte area…people here have been very vocal, in numbers, about wants, needs, desires with these projects. What the surprise is: Mayor Warren saying she will listen & act on behalf of communities’ wants/needs then her actions of doing the opposite!

  18. April 20, 2014 at 7:42 am denis bastien responds:

    Rachel………….Who is kidding Who here!! The price’s of these units r crazy>>Young pros & empty nesters will not purchase a place down here!!…..not when u can go live in the southwedge/park ave/sagamore/east ave area’s where u can walk to many venues……There is ‘NOTHING”down here!!!!….Iam sure anyone would rather spend the $$$ where they can get a bang for there buck!!!!……I like the idea of the marina…”but no highrisers”!!!…there is no reason – why there cant be a 1 floor only strip mall like–with different shops/bar or 2/ice cream shop>>a place when boaters dockup-they have a place to go relax&have fun:)…..but miss lovely wants this to be here baby….and she isnt going to backoff!!!..shes been thick headed from the get go……..and still is!!!….The Marina may survive–but these towers”if build” will b one big failure!!…Have a wonderful wkend Rachel:)

  19. I grew up in Charlotte. During my teen years in the 60’s, it was a wonderful community. We were separate from the city, buffered by the cometary, and only accessed down Lake Ave. we had our own neighborhood schools and everyone went to Charlotte High or Aquinas or Nazareth. The bars and eateries at the end of Lake Ave were a gathering spot for all the locals as well as the few visitors during the short summer. Little by little, the community lost its innocence. Charlotte High was now populated by kids who were bused in and had no sense of community. Charlotte was no longer a fun place to be. Businesses closed. The people who came down to the beach area were NOT there to enjoy their community, they were there to gather and cause trouble. I don’t recognize Charlotte anymore. The point of this story is that Charlotte, or Pittsford, or Fairport, or Spencerport or Brockport or any village is only as successful or a pleasure to live when it incorporates the community spirit. You WANT to feel you belong and you are a part of a community. I don’t see how a high rise in Charlotte will ever work. Short term buyers or renters do not bring a community feeling. The beach area and boating is at best a 6 month timeframe. What happens the other 6 months? College Town sounds like it fits because it is a busy area all year long. Creating lofts and living areas downtown may work because downtown has activities all year long. I realize I am biased because of my love for the Charlotte of old and what it still can be. I hope I am wrong about this venture. Charlotte deserves to be a happy place.

  20. April 20, 2014 at 1:43 pm Animule responds:

    I’m afraid I don’t get this project. The lynchpin for the project is the $20m marina, which – when it is completed – will have a whopping 85 boat slips. That works out to over $23,000 per boat slip. That has to be some kind of a record in the “construction of boat slips” department. Does a city that lacks the financial resources to make timely payments on the pension obligations it owes past public workers have the right to re-direct public dollars to such a risky venture? Didn’t anyone learn anything from Pier 45? And what is it about water that makes public officials make such foolish and ridiculous bets with “other people’s money?”

    As for the housing project, I thought the Cabrini-Green model of public high rise housing went out decades ago. There is only one place I can think of where something like his might succeed and that would be in Pittsford, by the Erie Canal.

  21. I don’t see how million dollar units will sell. 100k to 500k I can see, but not a mil. I like Charlotte and this development would make it a neat place if it works, but I don’t know who could afford that.

    FYI, urban vs suburban is based on development an density, not how close it is to downtown. Charlotte is most definitely an urban neighborhood. Same was villages and neighborhoods in the towns can be described as urban even of it isn’t in the city.

    • I would argue that Brighton is much more dense than Charlotte, closer to downtown, and yet no one considers it “urban.” Charlotte is suburb in the same way Brighton is a suburb. Charlotte might-as-well be part of Greece from a density and distance standpoint, and no one would consider Greece urban either.

  22. I think that an aquarium combined with an environmental research center run by SUNY Brockport would be the best touristy attraction you could put up on Lake Charlotte. It doesn’t have to be the scale of the Georgia aquarium but just something mid sized.

    It’s a family friendly attraction that could attract people from neighboring cities if executed correctly.

  23. April 20, 2014 at 7:46 pm Sarah H responds:

    I suspect that what is driving the $500K to $1M plus units is appeal to foreign investors. Wealthy Chinese, Korean, Canadian, European, Russian, et al, pay way more than $1.3 mil to have a waterfront penthouse in all other world markets. They might only be in residence a couple of weeks but their housekeepers will be permanent residents. They don’t give a hoot about Charlotte and the neighborhood, but I can’t dismiss them entirely as being bad for the local economy.

  24. Pingback: Rochester Rent Gap » The Rochesterian

  25. Rachel, Re: “This was the plan all along!” The plan was flawed from the beginning! It was not community-based and tried to appeal to the financial and the most affected (Charlotte) interests of Rochester. Meeting notices were not sufficiently posted, timing for public input was always vague, and the media neither challenged nor vetted the plans. I know, because I wrote and telephoned media about this from 2011-2013 on several occasions. More public uses and opportunities were not given due consideration for this very important public space.

  26. Pingback: » Email from Save Charlotte Now Band of Rebels

  27. May this Port development discussion be renewed. Our port’s future may otherwise be decided before its time. The community has so much to say.

    With regard to Animule’s very astute comment (#20 above), the marina cost is much worse than stated. In 2016, the City said the marina’s cost was $22 million (originally to have been $16 million?). Given the 85 boat slips built, the unit cost became $259,000/boat slip. Animule largely miscalculated it to be $23,000/boat slip at a $20 million cost. Let the record be corrected.

    The City said that the new slips would be rented for $2800/slip/yr – $4300/slip/year, to be managed by an operator. If we generously assume an average of $4000/slip/year for all 85 (Note: some will be set aside for condo owners and some not be rented for visiting boaters), the payback on this taxpayer investment would initially seem to be 65 years. Then factor in the management fees, overhead, vacancy, and misc. More likely 100 years.

  28. Dennis’s comments above are very well-stated! Our Port has always deserved a very public process leading to a very public outcome. To strengthen and demonstrate our “community”! It will instead be the opposite and makes for cynicism.

    (#14:) “I want to spend public dollars to enhance regional public assets. I have no problem spending tens of millions of dollars…but any improvement MUST benefit the general public …not just a handful of condo owners and an out-of-state developer! This project MUST be stopped…it will have a permanent negative impact on one of only a few valuable waterfront pubic spaces in our region.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *