The following is a Letter to the Editor from Joe Doyle, a Margate resident who’s fully against the contaminated gas station / parking lot plan supported by Mayor Collins and Solicitor Scott Abbott.
Joe Doyle: First of all, the fact that the city is hoping that Exxon will eventually tear down the building and complete the clean up of the contaminated area sounds like they do not have anything in writing, or if they do, it does not cover all of these items.
This should probably be clarified for the taxpayers BEFORE the deal is officially inked.
Secondly, I was told that this will benefit all of the businesses in town. I do not think that the businesses at the south end of town will see any benefit from this proposed lot, but I may be wrong.
I think that if the businesses in the area want this lot, then the businesses in that area should chip in and purchase the lot themselves. They all started their businesses without parking on that lot, so they knew what they were getting into when they opted to move forward with their businesses.
I want them all to succeed, but they should be succeeding without the taxpayer having to flip the bill for a lot that is going to cost the city millions of dollars.
Finally, the cost is outrageous. I went to the meeting and expressed my stance as being against this purchase, and was told that this lot will be an asset to the city. To me, this will actually be a long-term liability since it is going to take a long time to pay off, and it will always needs to be insured.
I admit that the maintenance won’t be much on a parking lot so that really doesn’t factor into my equation, but that is still a cost and cannot be overlooked.
If the final cost to the city is around $2M, and at most they can accommodate 30 parking places on that lot, then each parking lot will cost the city approximately $70,000.
I do not see how each spot is going to generate $70,000 in revenue to just pay off the purchase price, let alone the additional cost (still unknown) to transform the lot from what we have today to an actual parking lot, as well as cover the cost for ongoing insurance.
Even if we just look at the approximate $70,000 per spot for the purchase, then we are looking at many decades for each spot to generate enough cashflow to pay the city back and then become an actual “asset” for the city.
Let’s do the math on the above statement: We have approximately twelve weeks when the city has enough people in town that additional parking will be helpful (say mid-June once most kids are out of school and their families have transitioned to the beach for the summer, until right before Labor day). Twelve weeks is 84 days.
During those 84 days, we have roughly between 10 am – 6 pm when the businesses see most of their activity and will benefit from additional parking than what is around today. So we have 8 hours/day x 84 days = 672 hours per summer that this lot may benefit those few businesses in the area.
At $1 per hour parking rate we are looking at $672 per summer per spot. Well, $70,000 divided by $672 that we can hope to recoup per spot per summer gives us an ROI of 104 years.
THAT IS OVER A CENTURY TO PAY RECOUP JUST THE PURCHASE PRICE.
I also doubt that this lot will be at capacity with all thirty parking spots occupied at the same time, so this 104 years is the best case scenario. Even if we charge $2 per hour (and you won’t want to charge any more than this since people will just not pay more than that to go shopping), you still have over fifty years to get the purchase price back.
I am also curious to see what the transformation, insurance, and minimal maintenance costs will be per parking spot, which puts the 104 years at $1/hour or the 52 years at $2/hour much further out than these calculations.
In the end this is too much money for the return. If this will benefit the businesses, then the businesses can join together and buy this lot and charge what they want.
Leave the taxpayers alone and don’t use our money for this purchase, which in the opinion of a lot of taxpayers is not needed and not financially in the best interest of the city.
Let a developer buy the lot, get it cleaned up, and build what they want so that the city can get tax revenue from that scenario.
That then makes this lot an asset to the city because it is generating tax revenue.
The current plan that was voted on by Mayor Collins and Commissioner Horn makes this lot a liability, and not an asset.
Joe Doyle.
Very well said and totally agree
Very hard to disagree with Joe Doyle’s argument. I think the commissioners have some explaining to do to help the taxpayers better understand the rationale for their decisions.
Meant to write “Very hard to disagree with Joe Doyle’s argument.. “
Not to be a wise guy which I am but a common tactic for local governments is to apply for green acres money to fund projects such as this parking lot. Elect quality people to avoid this type of malfeasance.
Well thought out, glad someone is paying attention. I totally agree that this should not go through. The only benefit will be to a few businesses at a huge cost to the taxpayers. The parking lot at the other end of town was empty all the time.
The alternative will probably be what is being built at Liang’s/Billy Ho lot and the Burger Truck. That is storefronts on the bottom and condos on the top. This is better? More parking problems and lack of open space? I heard that the parking lot will have nice landscaping. I vote parking lot!
I’m with Joe Doyle. His arguments are far more sensible than anything the Mayor and the Solicitor have proposed. Let’s not turn our sweet little town into a cesspool of corruption.
At some point, and I believe we all hope it’s soon, our Mayor needs to show “his” leadership and not being the voice of his father in law, his father and their “insider” friends.
Changes are coming to our residential community by the Sea and many are not convinced they’re in the community’s best interest.
Listening to many who expressed themselves over this past year are important leadership skills. But you seem to have either your own vision or you are carrying the bucket for others.
Example: this parking lot issue has loud opposition as being misguided with an inflated purchase price, a significant environmental issue which probably goes beyond this one site and has a bad smell of benefiting a few.
Margate Commissioner Blumberg agrees with this loud voice of opposition.
Example: Changes along the bay has been put in place with commercial mid-rise buildings on the water by the prior leadership group. Some now believe you’re pushing their vision to expand and include some high rise condominium buildings along Amherst?
Is that your vision or the wishes of Solicitor Abbott and others?
Example: what happened to your campaign promise to live ZOOM video meetings and be open to listening while providing your leadership?
Many have watched your actions and question if these are your actions, or the actions instructed by others?
Margate is changing quickly. Is this your vision?
Many want an open government Zooming meetings and feeling your listening to all voices. Many feel a change in needed to move away from the prior leadership group.
It’s time for Margate Solicitor Scott Abbott to be removed to show real change.
Abbott’s actions in the 6 vs 12 (Baglivo Apts) issue and the handling of damaged homes on Amherst are just a few examples as to why we need to move forward.
And you, Mayor Collins, can’t move forward with ‘your’ leadership without ending the influence of your father (Tom) and father-in-law (John Amodeo) on your decision process.
I hope you earn more community respect, but it starts with earning community trust. Right now many are questioning who is really running Margate.
This is offered in the spirit of constructive suggestion.
I am extremely upset about the buildings going up on Amherst Avenue. How did this happen without the people of Margate knowing about it?
How is it for the PUBLIC GOOD?
That water way belongs to all of us. Soon they will block all of of waterways with buildings. We the Public will have no views of our beautiful waterways. Who benefits from them allowing this to happen? Not the people living in Margate.
The Planning Board consists of mostly builders. What is that all about? Why aren’t the citizens of Margate that have nothing to gain by the planning board’s decisions… on the planning board?
Where is the Mayor in protecting our town? Our natural resources are being depleted by continuing to build huge houses.
The planning board allowed the huge restaurant to be built across from Steve and Cookies at least twice as big as what existed there. HOW did that benefit the PUBLIC GOOD?
Those projects are being built on private property . Anyone paying attention knew about them. Those views belong to the property owners, it’s not complicated. If you wanted them to be public view you could have purchase them and left them empty.
I spoke at the commission meeting and brought out all of these points and the outflow of cash both immediately and long term. Commish Horn and Mayor Collins would not listen.
I suggested this matter be presented to entire taxpayer base and have a non-binding referendum in November to take pulse of the taxpayers.
Commissioner Cathy Horn’s response was curt and disrespectful. “Jay, do we have to come to you for a vote for everything we want to do?”
Mayor Collins said this (gas station) parcel would be an asset for Margate. Collins paid no attention to sound financial matters brought up by others, including Commissioner Maury Blumberg and myself.
Note: Developer who owns entire block where Knit Wit and Starbucks is located just purchased ‘Food Truck’ property, Pet Salon and Body Architect buildings. Sounds like he’ll now be able (through variances) to build without parking requirements since Margate City officials will now claim there will be parking with this lot.
Unfortunately, Commissioner Cathy Horn and Mayor Mike Collins forgot their promise of transparency.
Collins campaign promise of live Zoom video of meetings? Still not happening.
Collins and Horn are overbuilding commercial businesses in Margate, even with diminishing demand for business. And, we keep overdeveloping residential properties with even more seasonal (part time) homeowners.
Who would open a business in Margate for just 13 weeks of business?
There appears to be too much… going to so few.
Why would Margate close (buy) on a property without knowing the total cost?
If Margate Solicitor Scott Abbott is an advisor to our commissioners, why isn’t Abbott bringing sound advice?
Why is Abbott pushing so hard to close on this contaminated gas station deal?
Maybe someone knows why?
Kudos to Joe Doyle. His was an excellent piece. What is clear is that the due diligence needed to purchase a polluted property has not been done. All we have from the Commissioners is a comment that it will benefit all of Margate.
I suspect the reason no economic or financial study exists is that there is an example of the revenue potential of the proposed lot. Having done many economic impact statements, one thing always considered is similar existing or former projects. They provide a baseline for estimates of income potential. Luckily, there is a recent attempt at building and running a parking lot. It was on Ventnor Ave on the south side of Margate. That lot failed miserably and it wasn’t even a Superfund site.
No reputable economic consultant who was hired to do a study of the feasibility of the proposed parking lot would be able to discount that example. It is almost the exact same property type as the one being proposed. Thus, there is a revenue stream (or lack thereof) and a property value for a lot not subject to pollution issues. (I haven’t seen an appraisal of the property that would support the purchase price. Does one even exist?)
Given a comparable that is a failed parking lot, there is little reason to believe that the project would show any positive return on investment unless there is a massive positive impact on economic activity. Being an economist, as well as a Margate resident, it is hard to see how the parking lot could translate into city revenue significant enough to make the project financially feasible.
In addition, there hasn’t been any financial/cash flow analysis presented (or assumably done) that shows the impact of the bond costs, construction expenses and annual maintenance expenses on the city’s budget. What will this thing cost taxpayers, assuming everything goes right? Is there a worse-case scenario estimate?
And finally, we haven’t seen any environmental impact statement or the legal documents that would protect the city from clean-up costs. All we have is City Solicitor Abbott who doesn’t appear to have the experience in environmental law to secure an iron-clad purchase agreement that would protect the city against future environmental costs, as well as the certainty that the clean-up would be finished before the city enters into any agreement to purchase the property. This needs to be in place before the city secures a bond for payment of the property. Given if something goes wrong Mr. Abbott could be facing off against a huge international corporation, Exxon, who is purportedly responsible for the clean up, this is extremely worrisome. Why does Solicitor Abbott think he has the background and skills to enter into an agreement of this type?
In short, no property value appraisal or economic, financial or environmental statements have been shown to the public (or maybe even done) that would provide us with confidence that this property purchase makes sense. And Margate is being represented by legal counsel who isn’t an environmental lawyer against a major corporation. All we have is the request the we trust our Commissioners. Well, Ronald Reagan said it best, “Trust but verify”.
Before the Commissioners enter into such a major, potentially financially perilous purchase, they need to do all the necessary due diligence. Little or none of that has yet to be done.
This decision keeps getting worse.