City cites Trump lessons

Gordon Shumway wrote:

<quoted text>Are you absolutely positive about your statement? I think there are errors in both ststements. I believve the Rich family is involoved in both parcels, and why would someone want to keep paying taxes on a piece of land? Sure it will appreciate but not as much as the taxes over 20 years! If you do know more, please elaborate. Thanks.

Details on the "hole in the ground" straight from the City of Stamford Tax Assessors Office:
Parcel ID: 0033918
Map - Block - Lot: 1216938B
Owner: TGA/EUREKA III LLC
Owner Address: 335 MADISON AVE-15TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10017
Total Assessed Land Value:$31,989,410
Current Tax (2007 Grand List):$542,540.39

The real problem lies with the Zoning Board that allows too large of a footprint of a building on too small of a lot. If a building cannot be built without enough set back to protect the citizens of this city, it should not be approved. People complained from day one that this building should not have been built on this site. The Zoning Board approved it after "slight" adjustments were made to the setback and the number of stories were slightly reduced.

Unfortunately, there is not much the average citizen can do regarding the Zoning Board unless you have lots of money to hire lawyers to bog down the process. The only ones that have the money are the developers which is exactly why this damn building is being built.

It is absolutely out of character for the size of the property.

Fed Up - I totally agree. The whole idea was screewed to begin with, and people certainly said so to the zoning board. After that there was limited recourse. The zoning board has made some fair decisions to date (i.e. denying home depot) but this was not one of them. I think if someone wanted to cast blame, it would be fair to out the Zoning board members and ask them WHY they voted as they did. Certainly it was not a case of blending into the neighborhood, and the safety issues alone would give them cause for denial, if they chose. They purposefully chose not. So the question is WHY?

Fed Up wrote:

The real problem lies with the Zoning Board that allows too large of a footprint of a building on too small of a lot. If a building cannot be built without enough set back to protect the citizens of this city, it should not be approved. People complained from day one that this building should not have been built on this site. The Zoning Board approved it after "slight" adjustments were made to the setback and the number of stories were slightly reduced.
Unfortunately, there is not much the average citizen can do regarding the Zoning Board unless you have lots of money to hire lawyers to bog down the process. The only ones that have the money are the developers which is exactly why this damn building is being built.
It is absolutely out of character for the size of the property.

Actually, there is a very easy and inexpensive process that any citizen can use to appeal most Zoning Board decisions to the Board of Reps.

Natured not Nurtured wrote:

Fed Up - I totally agree. The whole idea was screewed to begin with, and people certainly said so to the zoning board. After that there was limited recourse. The zoning board has made some fair decisions to date (i.e. denying home depot) but this was not one of them. I think if someone wanted to cast blame, it would be fair to out the Zoning board members and ask them WHY they voted as they did. Certainly it was not a case of blending into the neighborhood, and the safety issues alone would give them cause for denial, if they chose. They purposefully chose not. So the question is WHY?

Perhaps if the Zoning Board had been aware of the City's inability to monitor the building, they would have made a different decision.

There are a number of other applications before the Zoning board for very tall buildings. It will be interesting to see if they are influenced by this experience.

Publius wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, there is a very easy and inexpensive process that any citizen can use to appeal most Zoning Board decisions to the Board of Reps.

Which rarely gets approved unless excessive palm dressing is used.

Devils Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
Details on the "hole in the ground" straight from the City of Stamford Tax Assessors Office:
Parcel ID: 0033918
Map - Block - Lot: 1216938B
Owner: TGA/EUREKA III LLC
Owner Address: 335 MADISON AVE-15TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10017
Total Assessed Land Value:$31,989,410
Current Tax (2007 Grand List):$542,540.39

Ok, so who are the members and share-holders of
TGA/EUREKA III LLC?

Vox Pop wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok, so who are the members and share-holders of
TGA/EUREKA III LLC?

For $20 you can find out from the State of Delaware, that's where it's incoporated.
https://sos-res.state.de.us/tin/GINameSearch....

Vox Pop wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok, so who are the members and share-holders of
TGA/EUREKA III LLC?

You can also find out some info from the State of CT.
http://www.concord-sots.ct.gov/CONCORD/online...

David wrote:

<quoted text>
You can also find out some info from the State of CT.
http://www.concord-sots.ct.gov/CONCORD/online...

No details.

Vox Pop wrote:

<quoted text>
No details.

The address is C/O MILSTEIN BROTHERS you need more then that to figure out the owners? That's a pretty big name in NYC real estate.

i don't think that many of you are involved in large commercial projects... otherwise you would be well aware that mishaps occur on a regular basis- it usually isn't the developers fault, rather some disgruntled or lazy laborer on the job site not being careful. Anyone hear about the four sheets of plywood that landed on the I-95 entrance ramp from the RBS project, or how about the acetylene tank that fell down the stairs at the same site and lodged itself in a steel girder? Probably not, because it is not a big name developer... these kind of things unfortunately just happen!

outrageous wrote:

i don't think that many of you are involved in large commercial projects... otherwise you would be well aware that mishaps occur on a regular basis- it usually isn't the developers fault, rather some disgruntled or lazy laborer on the job site not being careful. Anyone hear about the four sheets of plywood that landed on the I-95 entrance ramp from the RBS project, or how about the acetylene tank that fell down the stairs at the same site and lodged itself in a steel girder? Probably not, because it is not a big name developer... these kind of things unfortunately just happen!

We certainly heard about the crane that almost collapsed. You're right, accidents happen on Construction sites. The REAL reason you don't hear about them is because they didn't almost kill people in cars at a light, or students at a school across the street. You also don't hear about them because most buildings are not built nearly at roads edge as TRUMP is. It has ZERO to do with the developer and evrything to do with PUBLIC SAFETY!!! Thanks for plying though!!!