Jan 20, 2015

NIZ Bitch Slaps Allentown Taxpayers

J.B. Reilly wants the best of both worlds; While poaching tenants with lower rents and paying his mortgages with state taxdollars, he now wants his property taxes reduced, based on the lower rents, instead of the construction cost which we are paying for. All our local politicians are complicit in Reilly's appeal to the assessment board. The NIZ was essentially designed with him in mind, and the entire NIZ Board has been carrying his water. I doubt that he would make this assessment appeal without their knowledge and approval. If the city and school district doesn't get the full anticipated taxes, WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT? Pat Browne, Ed Pawlowski, Michael Schlossberg, Sy Taub, ETC. should be ashamed.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is great news!

Useful Idiots who went along with this feel-good crap are now finding out that their precious Big Government will be short-changing them big time.

(because Reilly WILL get his way, as always)

Play with matches. Burn down the house. The closest thing to "justice" the City Without (Spending?) Limits will ever see for a long, long time.

Anonymous said...

Well, the time for such a request WAS right!

We've been told Allentown School District recently 'found' $11 million. There's margin here. I do believe Mr. Reilly will get the relief he is requesting.

Ain't Allentown politics grand?

Fred Windish

Anonymous said...

He's got brass ones to ask, and our esteemed leadership doesn't have any support this abuse.

The Banker

Dreaming of Justice said...

Allentown: home to the new *Bitch Slap Zone*

hahahahhahaa

Keep Dreaming

Anonymous said...

"All our local politicians are complicit in Reilly's appeal to the assessment board."

Apparently the county didn't get the memo, the Assessment Board turned the appeal down.

michael molovinsky said...

@4:21, that was round one, reilly's taking the issue to court. as long as you're quoting me, do you have a quote from one of the local politicians pictured at the ribbon cutting who objected to reilly's appeal? i didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

Mike,

This is disturbing news but not surprising. The city and the school district are two separate entities.One important difference between the city and the district is that the board controls the district while the city is controlled by the mayor.In other words nine people tell the district what to do while one person runs the city.
So the person who the city is now beholden wants to save a few bucks by contesting his assessments. Those prone to skepticism could now doubt on his commitment to the city.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

What, the crony capitalist Reilly is in it only for the money?

Say it ain't so, Mr. Mo!

Anonymous said...

My take. The city should be run by the city council and the mayor. Like wise, the school district should be run by the School Board and the Superintendent. But alas, theory is rarely reality these days. The city is run by the mayor and his political pals and the school district is run by the superintendent and his side-kick solicitor. Both the city council and the school board are essentially powerless and ineffectual. They know too little and members are frequently beholden to their own agendas. But as usual, delusion shall prevail.

Anonymous said...

2:34,

If you think the school board is powerless and ineffectual then you are either angry or ignorant of the facts.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

2:34 hit it right on the head.

Julian Kern said...

City council has some powers but since they rubber stamp just about everything for the mayor their powers are useless.

This will not change until we change who our council members are. If we keep voting in the same people who say yes to everything the mayor wants expect the same thing to continue.

Anonymous said...

6:51,

You are either angry or ill informed as well. Such claims need some evidence to be taken seriously. See none here.

By the way, notice I sign my posts. Why don't you?

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Say what you will about Reilly, he or any property owner, has the statutory right to challenge his property's assessment.

and, superintendents work FOR the school board.

michael molovinsky said...

@12:50, reilly was basing his challenge on the reduced rents, which he can offer because he can use the state taxes for his mortgage payments. to turn around and then ask for property tax reduction, costs the taxpayer in yet another way. interesting that the Morning Call asks only one citizen, ce-ce gerlach, for response. they should question pawlowski, schlossberg, and browne, and have them take a position on reilly's right in this situation.

Anonymous said...

Why does ASD Board member Scott Armstrong project his anger onto any and all critics? People are perceptive and they see the ASD Board (and A-Town City Council) as rubber stamping "yes" men and women. Evidence? Go to any ASD Board meeting. What are the rubber stampers doing about the ASD finding a stray $11-$20 million in their coffers? Demanding an immediate rehiring of all those teachers they couldn't afford. Well, Scott? What's the plan?

michael molovinsky said...

@4:15, scott need not feel pressured to answer anonymous antagonists. the issue of the $11 million is under board scrutiny, that issue being led by david zimmerman. btw, you can address neither city council or the school board without giving your name.

ironpigpen said...

I hate it when state-planned economics and naked crony capitalism can't share the sand box.

Forward to progress, Comrade Molovinsky!

Respectfully,

ROLF OELER

Anonymous said...

Coward 4:15,

There is plenty to be angry about in Allentown but the real anger at school board meetings comes from those there to preserve their own self interest.

Scott Armstrong

Canary_In_Coalmine said...

"If the city and school district doesn't get the full anticipated taxes, WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT?"

The community benefit will be whatever increased property tax revenue the city does collect over and above what it collected before. I hope you'll keep an open mind on the question of community benefit at least until it's possible to compare those two figures.

As another commenter noted, every owner has the right to challenge her assessment. Hopefully the appeal is public record. I expect it will contain some interesting numbers.

The other day I took a walk down Hamilton Street from the Library to the Arena. Nearer the library, storefronts are still decidedly low-rent. Nearer the arena, pizza shops start to have trendy names like "Crust". An interesting development, even as I rued the loss of the Hess's snack bar as a dining option. Let's hope for success with this attempt to reinvent Downtown Allentown. We could use a break. I have fond memories from my teens of completing all my Christmas shopping with a walk down Hamilton Street. Those days are long gone, probably never to return. But wouldn't it be nice if our downtown were to flourish into a place offering wholesome possibilities for a kid and his paper route earnings?

michael molovinsky said...

canary @12:13, you're somewhat confused. the new signs are paid for by the taxpayers. i too hope for the success of the revamped downtown allentown, but will not cast a blind eye to the inequities. applying for reduced assessment from publicly paid mortgages is an inequity not anticipated by the NIZ legislation. i'm still waiting for public comment by the enabling legislators.

dreaming of justice said...

http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-lehighvalley/employees-say-atreat-soda-is-closing-after-97-years/30885736

A-Treat closes it's doors after a century of quenching Allentown's thirst..

Meanwhile, ordinary folk have found that the *Bitch Slap Zone* is no treat, either.