Carvel deal needs critical reporting
The Herald’s economic development coverage is mostly press release rewriting. There’s no critical analysis. I realize its reporters have tough workloads, but if a newspaper wants to avoid becoming irrelevant it has to ask the hard questions.
Why be critical of The Herald and its coverage of Carvel -- a company that plans to build 120,000 square foot plant at Booth and Myrtle Streets that will employ 265 people?
In these kinds of agreements, details matter. The city is desperate for economic development and developers know it and it's the newspaper’s job to make sure the city isn’t giving away too much to get it.
Here's my experience on that point.
In mid-1980s, New Britain had 15 acres of undeveloped land in downtown. This land was said to be so important to the city’s future that it was nicknamed “the jewels.”
Without going into its long history or details, the city ended up turning over the land to one developer who could not produce the office park detailed in its pretty architectural renderings. Only one building went up, One Liberty Square -- and that was built only after the city committed to using one third of it for the school department administrative headquarters. The state has since built a court house on the property.
I was one of the reporters working on that story at the time. Did we raise the right questions? Dig deep enough? I’ll let others make that assessment. But I certainly did learn from it.
It is good news that Carvel is building in the city and it is a far different deal then Liberty Square project. No question about it. But what did the state and city offer to bring Carvel to this city?
Here are some questions:
About the site itself: How much of the development land is Carvel getting? Did the city give up more property than it should have? What impact does this project have on future development on that parcel? [The Courant put the site at 13.5 acres. How much is Carvel taking?]
Are there additional costs not reported? For instance, will road, traffic light improvements or other infrastructure work be needed to support this development and, if so, who pays for it?
Are there any environmental issues?
What will the building look like? Granted, anything is probably better than vacant land. But this facility is, afterall, in a very visible near-downtown location and may have an impact on future development. Will there be any effort to try to ensure that the facility not only adds tax revenue, but is developed in such a way as to encourage additional development?
Labor: What types of jobs are being created and what will they pay? Sometimes these deals can create incentives to hire workers locally. Is that the case here? A Herald story mentions some job training money. Job training for what?
Just curious: Rocky Hill is loosing in the deal, since Carvel corporate is relocating. What’s the tax revenue loss in that community?
Are there any potential deal-breakers?
What’s the real cost of this project? The big issue is always tax breaks. The Herald report is very unclear about the tax incentives, the cost of those incentives and the return -- tax revenue -- from it. It’s reporting doesn’t go much beyond what I read in the governor’s press release. Compare the two:
The Herald:
State Governor’s press release:
The Courant explains that the $500,000 is annual revenue to the city. (That’s seems good, but it’s also why I’m interested in knowing whether there are any gotchas that – such as the infrastructrure improvements – that cut into that revenue gain.)
This is what the Courant reported:
One report in The Herald did quote an economist at the Connecticut Business & Industry Association who said Carvel would have a help spur other businesses. That was a good source to call.
It’s easy to raise questions, as I did here, away from any deadline and with the benefit of time and distance. And some of these questions will take time to answer. But there’s ample opportunity for additional reporting about this project.
Why be critical of The Herald and its coverage of Carvel -- a company that plans to build 120,000 square foot plant at Booth and Myrtle Streets that will employ 265 people?
In these kinds of agreements, details matter. The city is desperate for economic development and developers know it and it's the newspaper’s job to make sure the city isn’t giving away too much to get it.
Here's my experience on that point.
In mid-1980s, New Britain had 15 acres of undeveloped land in downtown. This land was said to be so important to the city’s future that it was nicknamed “the jewels.”
Without going into its long history or details, the city ended up turning over the land to one developer who could not produce the office park detailed in its pretty architectural renderings. Only one building went up, One Liberty Square -- and that was built only after the city committed to using one third of it for the school department administrative headquarters. The state has since built a court house on the property.
I was one of the reporters working on that story at the time. Did we raise the right questions? Dig deep enough? I’ll let others make that assessment. But I certainly did learn from it.
It is good news that Carvel is building in the city and it is a far different deal then Liberty Square project. No question about it. But what did the state and city offer to bring Carvel to this city?
Here are some questions:
About the site itself: How much of the development land is Carvel getting? Did the city give up more property than it should have? What impact does this project have on future development on that parcel? [The Courant put the site at 13.5 acres. How much is Carvel taking?]
Are there additional costs not reported? For instance, will road, traffic light improvements or other infrastructure work be needed to support this development and, if so, who pays for it?
Are there any environmental issues?
What will the building look like? Granted, anything is probably better than vacant land. But this facility is, afterall, in a very visible near-downtown location and may have an impact on future development. Will there be any effort to try to ensure that the facility not only adds tax revenue, but is developed in such a way as to encourage additional development?
Labor: What types of jobs are being created and what will they pay? Sometimes these deals can create incentives to hire workers locally. Is that the case here? A Herald story mentions some job training money. Job training for what?
Just curious: Rocky Hill is loosing in the deal, since Carvel corporate is relocating. What’s the tax revenue loss in that community?
Are there any potential deal-breakers?
What’s the real cost of this project? The big issue is always tax breaks. The Herald report is very unclear about the tax incentives, the cost of those incentives and the return -- tax revenue -- from it. It’s reporting doesn’t go much beyond what I read in the governor’s press release. Compare the two:
The Herald:
Use of the proposed building, with an estimated value of $16.3 million in facilities, machinery and equipment, is expected to result in more than $500,000 in real and personal property tax revenue for the city. The state could see an economic return estimated to be in excess of $23 million over 10 years.
State Governor’s press release:
The proposed building with an estimated value of $16 million will result in over $500,000 in real and personal property tax revenue for the City. As important to New Britain this project is — representing an investment by Celebration Foods of $16,260,000 in new facilities and machinery and equipment — the state will also see an economic return estimated to be in excess of $23 million over a 10-year period.
The Courant explains that the $500,000 is annual revenue to the city. (That’s seems good, but it’s also why I’m interested in knowing whether there are any gotchas that – such as the infrastructrure improvements – that cut into that revenue gain.)
This is what the Courant reported:
Celebration Foods is expected to generate more than $500,000 in real estate and personal property tax revenue for the city each year and more than $23 million for the state over 10 years, according to Rell's office. It will be one of the city's top 10 taxpayers, Stewart said.
The city and the state Department of Economic and Community Development offered Celebration, which had considered about 50 other communities, several incentives. City incentives include a $1 million grant and a five-year, 80 percent discount on real and personal property taxes, which will be reimbursed to the city by the state, Stewart said.
One report in The Herald did quote an economist at the Connecticut Business & Industry Association who said Carvel would have a help spur other businesses. That was a good source to call.
It’s easy to raise questions, as I did here, away from any deadline and with the benefit of time and distance. And some of these questions will take time to answer. But there’s ample opportunity for additional reporting about this project.
Labels: New Britain Connecticut
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home