Developer discusses pulling plug on senior housing project after GCEDC board blocks public funding
A company that was planning to build much needed middle-income senior housing in Genesee County is apparently ready to kill the project after the Genesee County Economic Development Center Board voted Tuesday to block the project from receiving financial aid.
A representative of Calamar, the senior housing developer, sent an e-mail to a county official yesterday that said without the more than $1.4 million in tax breaks Calamar was seeking, the project is not financially viable.
A source provided The Batavian with a copy of the e-mail.
"We've been left with no options than to not proceed," wrote Jocelyn Bos, director of senior housing development for Calamar. "If we do not have an endorsement, I wouldn't be able to keep the rents affordable to the middle income senior group of Batavia."
Asked by The Batavian for further comment and to confirm the contents of the e-mail, Bos backed off the not-proceeding statement.
Her entire statement:
First, I want to tell you how I have admired how your paper supports the seniors of all incomes in your community and just want to let you know that we are exploring our options regarding our proposed middle-income senior complex.
According to John Gerace, a real estate agent who assisted Calamar with locating the property on West Main Street Road for the project, Calamar officials spent much of yesterday discussing their options.
Among them, he said, is filing an Article 78 claim (essentially a lawsuit) against GCEDC.
The way Gerace sees it, middle-income housing for seniors is needed in Batavia; it's part of the county's master plan; it's an identified need in GCEDC's planning documents; and this is a commercial project just like any other, so it's eligible for assistance.
"I told them (the GCEDC board), 'you guys should be ashamed of yourselves because you know it's warranted and needed, so what you've done is just shut the door on any more senior housing in Genesee County,' " Gerace said.
Calamar was seeking $400,000 in sales tax and mortgage tax exemption and a $1 million PILOT, which exempts a property from additional property taxes on an increase in assessed value, graduated over 10 years.
The value of the developed property would have been at least $5 million, Gerace said, which would have meant an additional $175,000 in new local property tax revenue once the PILOT expired.
Local residents selling their homes to move into the Calamar facility also would have generated new tax revenue, Gerace said.
Gerace worked as a secondary agent on the property sale, he said, and stood to get no more than a $4,000 commission on the $1 million sale of the property on West Main Street Road.
Ray Cianfrini, chairman of the County Legislature, and a GCEDC board member, said he voted against Calamar because he can't see authorizing spending $1.4 million in taxpayer money to create two jobs.
"We all agreed that it's a worthwhile project," Cianfrini said. "We all agree middle-income senior housing is needed. We agree with that, we just don't want to spend taxpayer money to do it. If the project doesn't go forward, I feel badly about that, but this was not a narrow vote."
Cianfrini said he also sees the Calamar project as competition for existing senior housing in the county -- housing that was built without taxpayer assistance.
Calamar would have been able to charge lower rents than some existing projects and that wouldn't be fair to the other developers, Cianfrini said.
The idea of competition is the key to the vote, Gerace said. More new housing in the county would mean more competition for Pete Zeliff and his Oakwood Estates project on the east side of town.
Zeliff, a newer member of the GCEDC board, is building single-family homes that would be marketed to upper-income professionals.
Gerace thinks that creates a conflict of interest for Zeliff and Cianfrini, who is the attorney for Zeliff on the project.
Cianfrini and Zeliff said both said don't see a conflict of interest. The two projects are completely different. They're aimed at different markets -- one is rental, the other is home ownership. Even if you factor in existing homes being vacated by seniors moving into the Calamar project, that's still a very different home buyer looking at those older homes than would consider something in Oakwood Estates.
Zeliff has not even approached the GCEDC about financial incentives for Oakwood Estates. He said his vote against the Calamar project had everything to do with the merits of the proposal.
"They're creating just two jobs at cost of $1.4 million," Zeliff said. "That's $700,000 a job. The residents complain when the EDC gives incentives to industry that is $100,000 a job, why would the residents want to commit $700,000 to a job to residential housing?"
And yes, competition is an issue -- Calamar would compete with projects such as Clinton Crossings, which charges $1,100 a month in rent. Calamar's taxpayer-subsidized rents would all be $1,000 or less.
Clinton Crossings received no tax incentives for its project, Zeliff said.
"They have 35 people on the waiting list waiting to get in," Zeliff said. "The area will support senior housing at the money Calamar claims it won't."
Gerace wonders why the GCEDC board wouldn't even let the project go to a public hearing, allowing the public to weigh in on whether Calamar should get tax incentives to help build much needed senior housing.
Cianfrini said he didn't see any point in a public hearing.
"My position, if we don't believe in the project in the first instance, why let it go to a public hearing when we know we're going to vote it down after a public hearing," Cianfrini said. "We just thought we'd be wasting valuable time to even let it go to a public hearing. If they want to know what the public viewpoint on this is, let them poll the public themselves and get their own opinion on it."
Go find your corporate welfare somwhere else
learn from the others that are well off and need zero help but of course free money drives greed .
Greed is, join the GCEDC board , slate a project or buy a business that is good for PR , such as save a dying business and the community will praise you , GCEDC will never vote against that . When its time to vote on the project , you resign . It sound familiar doesn't it . Yes the sale of PW minor is doing some good and yes someone has to make up the tax gap , who do you think that is . Housing projects can only and will only be good for all but those invested in real-estate that see this as watering down the field . AS Dick Seibert was quoted that there are too many housing projects for middle income there for he doesn't see the need for more .Or is it he doesn't see the need for competition. So what does he do appoint a shady rental owner that is good at pulling the wool over the publics eye to the county government to protect interests . oh this guy bought PW minor . BLA BLA ,
cant hide behind the truth
here is a better shady scenario , rent to those who get tax dollar assistance , and then get voted into county government to earn a wage also from county tax dollars along with lifetime medical and a pension .
Sound familiar .
Stop lining the pockets of shady businessman that only cares about himself and his fortune.
They could apply for subsidies through HUD, who would subsidize the rent for those seniors who meet income and asset limits.
There are numerous senior housing units in the Rochester are who have HUD subsidies for their tenants who meet the limits.
Their target market isn't anybody who would qualify for HUD. Their target market is the people above that income bracket, but still not rich enough for a high-end retirement home. It's in that market segment -- they believe -- where there is a shortage of options for seniors.
BTW: One comment I forgot to include from John Gerace is that Calamar felt that when they first came to Genesee County looking for an opportunity, they felt the GCEDC encouraged them to build here and that they wouldn't have any trouble getting support.
Of course, from then to now, the GCEDC board has changed dramatically. There are three new board members since a year ago.
How do you forgive property taxes on this project but not allow homeowners that same right..All this would do is allow them to charge cheaper rents ,while at the same time other don't get that break..This time they made the right decision....If we all had lower property taxes this wouldn't be a problem....