Popular Posts

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Salisbury Mall Parking Proposal Reeks (Letter to the Editor)

Rick Pollitt wet his finger and stuck it someplace other than in the wind if he believes any of the nonsense that was printed in Sunday’s newspaper over his signature. His gauzy reminisce about events from decades past struck a nostalgic note; too bad very few of these events appear with any regularity at the Civic Center; it’s mainly devoid of activity.

He spewed hyperbole and speculative comments and generated a whiteout of verbiage lacking facts and puffed full of rhetorically dubious reasoning that made this weekend’s snowstorm look like a dusting of flurries in comparison.

The Civic Center is a building that is showing its age in a number of respects. Recognizing that, Pollitt with great fanfare appointed a distinguished panel of community leaders quite a while back and asked them to report back with recommendations regarding its future or potential replacement. Maybe I haven’t been paying attention, but I don’t recall any concrete news from the commission in the interim. Is the current parking lot proposal a precursor to an announcement about the need for even more land for a new and exciting Circus Maximus?

Civic Center manager, and Sol Hurok wannabe, Gary Mackes always has some notion for expanding his empire and building his pyramid. Too bad we live in a smaller community with iffy average incomes. The bleat that the only thing standing between sellouts of extravaganzas, professional hockey teams locating here and making the Civic Center cash flow positive on a recurring basis has been lack of parking space. It is a bogus argument.

Overflow parking, already owned by the public and off the tax rolls, is available at the County Stadium and at Wi-Hi (which has two lots) and at the ball field on Civic Avenue, not to mention at Twilley Center (which is on the tax rolls) a block away. The fact of the matter is that the Civic Center rarely hosts events which draw a full crowd….and when it does folks utilize the spaces noted above. Folks have also used some spaces at the Salisbury Mall location across time, both when it was functioning and since then.

Mr. Pollitt feels paying $300,000 an acre to purchase 5 acres at the old mall site for a total outlay of $1.5 million is a prudent use of public funds. He dwelt at length on the source of the funds and basically said “As long as the money isn’t coming from your (individual citizen) or our (Wicomico County) funds, what do you care how much we pay?” This is the state of mind that blithely approves expensive brass-plated trash cans, et al since it’s on the public dime.

Somewhere in the flurry of lousy arguments supporting this assault on the public dollar I recall the phrase “highest projected use” or such, being proffered as the reason for the high private appraisal of the value of the contemplated parcel. In plain English, the appraisers acted as if there was some present value to the land beyond being old, crumbling asphalt. They took the putative developers rosy vision for the revenue to be reaped from the parcel and endorsed it as if it were fact or a likely near accomplishment. Guarantee the appraisers would not buy land for themselves, out of their pocket, on a similar premise. So why should the county? Why should the state? Tell us Ricky!

Salisbury Mall Associates paid $4,060,000 for the two mall parcels totaling 56 +/- acres in late 1997. The property had the ailing but functional Salisbury Mall on its premises. Purchase price, per acre, was $72,500. Now in his unrebutted opinion piece Mr. Pollitt, who claims a family inspired ability to divine the value of things since he’s oblivious to their price, feels paying 4 times as much per acre for this land is visionary statesmanship of the highest order. He is just plain wrong since the above figures only relate to the purchase price of the old mall land and structures. Ooops! That’s right; he neglected to mention he wanted to pay 4 times more per acre than it cost the sellers.

Current assessment value of the two parcels is $2,191,300, or $42,487.50 per acre. So if paying more than 4 times the purchase value/acre is an act of statesmanship, what is the intellectual rating ascribed to paying over 7 times the current, state assessed value. Genius, pure genius! Oh, how the rarified air of the third floor clarifies the mind! Yikes! He forgot to mention that paying 7 times the cost was better than paying 4 times the cost. Thank goodness for Ricky math which understands the true value of expenditures, rather than small-minded concepts like their cost!

Back to the Civic Center proper for a moment. Another bleat is that selling booze would transform the white elephant into a cash cow. The deed restriction prohibits selling booze there, from all accounts. It hasn’t prohibited groups from serving alcohol there as long as they were not selling alcohol; I’ve attended some of those events when companies held events there before prohibitive pricing by the center sent them elsewhere. Not to mention the creation of an on-site, government run catering operation that was incredibly expensive, in addition to banning private caterers from serving the events. Way to support the local tax-paying food service businesses! So you’d think Sol Hurok, Jr. would have tried selling two tier tickets; regular for whatever $ the event commanded, and BYOB for a stiffer $$ (pun intended) price. That way he’d have the coveted revenue without having to purchase, inventory or dispense the juice. Patrons could check their hooch at a booze-check (like a coat check) and return as they wished to refill their glass. More revenue could be generated by selling the setups. Problem solved.

In sum, regardless of the source, using public money for this purpose is foolish, and the foolish rationale that if we don’t squander the public dollar on it some other city or town will get to squander it instead of us is an argument without a leg to stand on. It is definitely a losing argument in Wicomico County 100% of the time, even in good times!

Council members…..this is a very bad deal for the public masquerading as a very bad deal for the public. Please turn it back.

13 comments:

  1. Rick Pollitt must have been tutored by the Gordy fella from the fire department. Spend crazy money in a bad economy even when you dont have it to spend. Dont listen to anybody. Just spend it regardless.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent essay!

    So many of us feel the same way.

    And what about the property the county already owns behind Harvard manufacturing? What's that being used for?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is another "Slick Trick by Rick" (a/k/a Mr. Transparency).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't miss this post:

    http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2010/02/mr-pollitt-dont-do-that-mall-deal.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Old Mall on Sale

    Daily Times. Salisbury, Md.:Jun 6, 2003. p. 8
    Copyright 2003 - Daily Times Salisbury, MD - All Rights Reverved

    SALISBURY -- An auction Thursday of the old Salisbury Mall failed to attract a single bidder for the city's former retail center.

    Though the auctioneer dropped the asking price five times, no developers were willing to make the minimum $3.5 million starting bid for the 55-acre site.

    "Is there any interest at all?" Real Estate Broker John Hanenfeld asked the crowd of about 15 developers from Salisbury and other areas.

    The potential bidders stood quietly in the mall space once occupied by a Peebles store as auctioneers reduced their opening bid of $5 million to $3.5 million before calling off the sale.

    "I don't think we're going to reduce it any more," Auctioneer Bill Bunch told the crowd after he made repeated calls for a bidder.

    Hanenfeld said owners have received several private offers for the former retail center on Civic Avenue that they will review. "It's going to be sold," Hanenfeld said.

    The silence at the auction Thursday is the latest in the ongoing struggle owners have had with the old Salisbury Mall.

    Built in 1967, the mall was the retail center of the city for two decades.

    But when a new mall was built on north Route 13 and retail businesses flocked to the new commercial corridor in the 1990s, the shopping center fell on hard times. In recent years, several of the old mall's anchor stores moved out.

    Today, the mall is mostly empty except for a few shops and a martial arts academy.
    Owners have been trying to sell the mall for several years, along with a proposed residential development off Saint Albans Drive.

    Real estate sources in Salisbury say owners had originally asked for $9 million for the property. Tax assessments place the mall's value at about $5 million.
    Unable to find a dedicated buyer, owners put the site up for auction.

    The pending sale had attracted interest from across the country. Several local developers also had eyed the property, hoping to use the site to build a hotel or commercial complex to complement the neighboring Wicomico Youth & Civic Center.

    Several officials in the area say the mall will require extensive work to redevelop, however. Carpets in the building are stained from leaks in the roof and the parking lot outside is cracked.
    "It would cost ($3.5 million) just to plow it under," one official said Thursday.
    But owners say the mall could become a lucrative investment. Two acres near the site bought for $600,000 in 1997 were sold again this year for $1.1 million.

    At the auction, owners also were unable to sell 21 acres already approved for a residential development. The auctioneer lowered the original $3 million starting bid to $1.5 million with no takers.

    Bunch, an auctioneer from Pennsylvania, said it is not uncommon for no bids to be made at a real estate auction.

    "It isn't like selling antiques or art," he said after the sale. "But it helps get people interested in the property. People come out and see it. That usually leads to a sale."

    The auction was attended by several residents who live near the site. Area residents say they are tired of seeing the large building lying dormant.
    "It has to be developed," said Virginia Elliott, who watched the non-sale with her husband.

    * Reach Daniel Valentine at 410-749-7171, Ext. 320, or dvalentine@smgpo.gannett.com.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I really regret this having not been published before this morning. The council is meeting now and it is doubtful they got the opportunity to read this. Well written and great thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It seems that most governments don't realize that every time they purchase a property not only are they wasting taxpayers money but they are also removing it from the tax base which leaves less revenue for that government for eternity. In reality, most local governments should be selling excess property to generate revenue, not buying more. There must be something in this purchase for Pollitt if you know what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It was publichesd right here on this blogg hopefully they read dit and understand

    ReplyDelete
  9. The mall developers need the money to dig themselves out of their TIF holes and failures in Virginia.

    I may not be smart enough to write a great essay like this person did, but I think I'm smart enough to make a friendly bet:

    End game is to buy the entire mall lot at some outrageous price and build a new Civic Center on it that sells booze.

    No one in Wicomico will be able to afford going there except some hoitie toities. The snake oil developers will walk out laughing all the way to the bank about the country rubes they snookered.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, yeah. Forgot.

    The Civic Center relocated onto the mall lot will deprive Salisbury of some more tax revenue.

    Business as usual for our county and the city.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have 3 acres for sale, and will gladly bus the people to the civic center for FREE.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why do feel they have to be so dramatic to get their message across. Some of your message got lost in the drama. You reach more people with a straight concise message. You lose the respect of the listener/reader when adding so much drama. Save if for the romance novels.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's a shame this public hearing was held on a work day and snow day for childre, when many tax payers were unable to attend the WCC meeting. As a result, the majority of folks who attended were not the tax base, but special interest advocating for this outragious expenditure.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.