One more day on Baltimore Development and taxpayer money. If you give one business in an area a corporate tax break for being there would you not thing all businesses would expect one? Then, all of a sudden you are handing them out hand over foot under the guise of 'keeping business in town' and before too long,.....no one is paying taxes! We already have corporate Johns Hopkins as a private non-profit creating tons of private non-profits that are simply businesses that do not pay taxes and are taking over all public services with no public oversight. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!! YOU DO NOT HAVE A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT....
YOU HAVE TOTALITARIANISM!
All this is driven by Hopkins and O'Malley placed it on steroids and Rawlings-Blake it moving it forward as the 1% like to say.....
MOVING FORWARD IS THE NEO-LIBERAL MANTRA....
Remembering the Harbor Point blog about Exelon and TIFs we see just what I describe above happening. How do you stop all of this? You investigate and find that all these TIF tax breaks never meet the terms of agreement and nullify all the contracts and if they leave, turn the buildings into affordable housing on the waterfront.
This must be why T Rowe just went public with a threat of moving due to 'crime' around the headquarters. When interviewed none of the employees noticed much crime but stated that large gatherings of black youth outside The Gallery was a bother. It seems that T Rowe is simply creating a reason to be paid to move to an Enterprise Zone and get all the TIFs and perks all corporations are getting courtesy of Baltimore taxpayers!
Jul 24, 2013, 2:01pm EDT Updated: Jul 24, 2013, 4:40pm EDT Exclusive:
Harbor Point developer tries to 'woo' T. Rowe Price Baltimore money manager takes 'relaxed' approach to HQ search
Jaclyn Borowski Harbor Point is a prime piece of vacant land between Harbor East and Fells Point.
Gary HaberStaff Reporter- Baltimore Business Journal
Developer Michael Beatty has pitched T. Rowe Price Group Inc. on a new headquarters building he wants to construct for the mutual fund giant at Harbor Point, T. Rowe CEO James A.C. Kennedy said Wednesday.
T. Rowe (NASDAQ: TROW) has four years remaining on its lease at 100 E. Pratt St. and is looking at options that include Harbor Point or staying at its current location. It has also received proposals from other developers whom Kennedy declined to identify.
Beatty has been trying to “woo” T. Rowe, Kennedy said in an interview. Kennedy described T. Rowe’s approach as “very relaxed.”
“We’re long-term investors and we think about real estate from a long-term perspective,” he said. “We have plenty of time to come to a conclusion on this.”
Beatty’s company, Beatty Development Group, has plans to build a 22-story building at Harbor Point for Exelon Corp., (NYSE: EXC), the Chicago-based owner of Constellation Energy and Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.
To help get the $1 billion project started, Beatty is seeking $107 million in tax-increment financing which has become a point of controversy. Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has come out in favor of the TIF, but City Councilman Carl Stokes opposes it saying it would be an unwise use of tax dollars. The TIF was the subject of a raucous City Council meeting on July 17 and the matter was put off until August.
The 28-acre waterfront Harbor Point development already includes a building for Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS). Adding T. Rowe as another signature tenant would create a financial services campus at site between Harbor East and Fells Point, but it would also mean a major tenant loss for the Pratt Street corridor, the heart of Baltimore’s traditional downtown. Legg Mason Inc. (NYSE: LM) moved from 100 Light St., at the corner of Light and Pratt streets, to Harbor East in 2009.
Beatty, and Marco Greenberg, another Beatty Development Co. official, could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.
Kennedy told the Baltimore Business Journal in April that the company would consider other downtown options besides staying at 100 E. Pratt St. when its leases expires in June 2017. He also said another option would be relocating T. Rowe’s headquarters to the company’s Owings Mills campus. However, Brian C. Rogers, T. Rowe’s chairman, said at the GBC’s annual meeting in May that the company would remain in the downtown area.
T. Rowe has been a tenant in 100 E. Pratt since 1976. It has 422,000 square feet of space and nearly 1,300 employees in the building.
On Wednesday, Kennedy said T. Rowe’s “strong preference” is to keep its headquarters in downtown Baltimore, which he said includes Harbor Point. Kennedy said he has communicated that to Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.
Kennedy said there is “a lot of debate internally” within T. Rowe about whether the company should move, and if so, where.
“We need more facts about what Harbor Point would be like and what the owner of this building [100 E. Pratt St.] is willing to do,” he said.
He said company is in talks with the owner of 100 E. Pratt St. about extending the lease there. Kennedy said he’d like to see certain improvements made to the building, although he did not offer specifics.
Is the LEED program a fraud?
March 13th, 2009 in Blogs 2 Email Kevin Ireton, editor-at-large
Share This The LEED rating system is “a tragedy,” according to Henry Gifford, resulting in buildings that use more energy, not less, and “a fraud perpetrated on U.S. consumers trying their best to achieve true environmental friendliness.” Henry is a mechanical systems specialist in New York City and, apparently, a vocal critic of the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program. I heard him make these claims on Tuesday night as he sat next to Brendan Owens, USGBC’s vice president of technical development. The two were part of a public debate that took place in Boston at Building Energy 09, the annual conference of the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association.
The source of the debate is a study released a year ago that compared the energy performance of LEED-certified buildings with that of existing, noncertified buildings. The USGBC claims that the study shows LEED buildings to be 25% to 30% more efficient, but Henry says their methodology is flawed. According to him, the LEED buildings actually use 29% more energy than other buildings. Henry also thinks that “green” buildings ought to be certified based on their performance after a year or two of service and that the energy use for buildings ought to be available to the public on utility Web sites. You can read more about Henry’s views on his Web site and in the latest issue of Northeast Sun. Iconoclastic building scientist Joe Lstiburek has weighed in on this debate (pretty much agreeing with Henry), as has Nadav Malin of Building Green.
I should make it clear at this point that the study and the controversy surrounding LEED deal only with commercial buildings, not houses. The USGBC launched the LEED program for commercial buildings more than 10 years ago, while LEED for Homes is brand new. I hesitate to offer an opinion on all of this because I haven't read the study and don't understand the rating system like these other guys do. But I will venture to say that launching LEED and then waiting 10 years before studying the actual performance of certified buildings hardly qualifies as “leadership.” And I certainly hope that the LEED for Homes program learns from this embarrassment.
If we had oversight in Maryland and Baltimore one would find that much of what is given green tax breaks does not meet standards or was unnecessary as an incentive. If a developer charges more for a property because it is green, he has gained that incentive without taxpayers!
The Spirit Of The Law–Is Baltimore’s Proposed Project Green?
Published on August 31st, 2010 by Shari Shapiro
In 2009, Baltimore passed an amendment to its building code requiring public and private buildings above 10,000 gross square feet to "be equivalent to a LEED “Silver” level." Obviously, the goal was to get buildings in Baltimore to be more environmentally friendly. Fast forward a year, and a controversy is brewing over whether a proposed Big Box project, including a Lowe’s and a Walmart is actually green. There is some rumbling that the project was not green because it was not being certified by the USGBC, and may not be properly managing its wastewater. According to Baltidome:
During community testimony at the hearing, the Planning Commission was presented with concern that the developers were not applying for LEED “Silver” certification for the project and that the proposed development appears to be failing in its method for waste water management of the site. Despite the developer’s assertions, the project may, in fact, be ineligible for LEED “Silver” standards set by the city.
Without deeply analyzing the nicities of wastewater management, the resistance to the 25th street station project appears to be mainly one of local vs. chain. But I am wrestling with the more basic regulatory concept of incentivizing inner city development because it is green, even if it does not embrace green building practices.
Work with me here. Cities are inherently green. One of my favorite New Yorker articles of all time was David Owen’s 2004 piece on why New York City is sustainable. The argument for 25th Street Station’s green cred goes like this "If the 25th Street Walmart project comes to fruition, your average Baltimorean will have greater access to retail within walking or short driving distance. No need to go to the suburbs to shop, wasting fossil fuel and requiring expensive additional infrastructure. In addition, it provides an amenity which makes inner city living more attractive." Weighed against that, of course, is the long distance shipping of goods to Walmart, and potentially the non-green siting and construction practices. But the non-green practices and the long distance shipping would exist wherever Walmart built, in downtown Baltimore or in an exurban location.
Baltidome is rightly concerned that Baltimore’s green building regulations are not being enforced, and there is currently considerable stress on municipal budgets which are leading to green building programs being scaled back. Are we better off, in an era of severely constrained municipal finances, focusing on incentivizing urban development and renewal than specifying (and enforcing) green building practices?
- See more at: http://blog.cleantechies.com/2010/08/31/the-spirit-of-the-law-baltimore-proposed-project-green/#sthash.xROMSaCs.dpuf
Did you know that the greening industry has a regulatory/oversight agency just like the SEC for the banks? It is called LEED. It has over two decades been found to be just as corrupt as the SEC in working with corporations to use taxpayer money given to green projects without restriction. Time and again it was found that funds given to greening projects never met the guidelines for getting the money. Once again, billions of dollars have been lost to fraud for greening and with Obama's initiative giving hundreds of billions to greening and knowing Rule of Law and oversight is completely suspended, we are safe to assume that fraud and corruption is taking much of this taxpayer money as well. LEED certainly is there to make sure they get away with it! All of downtown developers are being loaded with greening tax breaks for simply building apartments!
I want to remind people of my blogs last year about Pikesville developers shouting out about all the money coming in from greening and TIFs....not to mention Wall Street. This is Cardin country after all and Wall Street is thanking Cardin for his service in making them who they are!
Feds arrest embezzler hired to run green-jobs program in Baltimore Mayor’s Office
July 12, 2013 By Van Smith 33 City Paper
The Baltimore Mayor’s Office of Employment Development (MOED) in 2011 hired a convicted embezzler, only 14 months out of federal prison and still on supervised release, for a $41,000-per-year position to run a green-jobs training program funded by a state grant, according to court records, other public information.
If neo-liberals were serious about combating global warming then the first thing they would do is protect the funds slated to fight global warming. We have government watchdogs attesting to the fact that much of what goes out with greening tax credits is unnecessary. Do we really need to subsidize a developer building homes with greening elements who then turn around and charge the home-buyer more in price because it has these greening elements?
It has become ridiculous to watch as contractors and management companies feed at the taxpayer trough in these deals that have no oversight....no accountability....no recovery of massive fraud!