Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Tomorrow..... Tomorrow .... It's Only A Day Away":
What is the annual rent paid by the DND for the town-owned building that was spruced up at a significant cost?
Presumably this figure is contained in the town's budget on the revenue side.
Or is this information classified?
*******************
The rent is $131,000. a year.
We will not realise revenue for at least the first five years. We will have spent that and maybe more in that time. We are lanndlords don't you know and responsible for upkeep of the building.
If you factor the seventy-thousand dollars that was calculated in the year 2006 as assessment revenue if the building had been sold then. And the interest earned on the capital asset if the title had been transferred to an industry. And the twenty-seven jobs that were accommodated in the building, the figure for rent becomes even more nonsensical
Or failing the sale of the building, its value to fullfil a needed town function , which we are now told could cost between $14 and $17 million dollars expenditure ,is another factor which compels one to look askance at the deal that was made with the Department of National Defence and wonder whose interest was being served.
Think about that and the Church Street School fiasco every time you write a cheque to pay your taxes
and wonder again WT well you know.
How many full time and part time jobs are there now that DND is using the building? I think that you will be surprised.
ReplyDeleteMatt Maddocks letter in Auroran
ReplyDeleteMayor Dawe was elected partially on his business background. Where did that all go ? Has he left it on the golf course.
ReplyDeleteFull-day kindergarden is on the chopping block and we are still subsidizing these bored rich women? Last time for the individual councillors to weigh in - Your town is watching you. I note particularly the voices I should have heard but have not. Humphreys, Thompson, and Dawe. The other three are useless although Gallo might get an inkling that he should abandon the ship.
ReplyDelete"We will not realise revenue for at least the first five years."
ReplyDeleteHow can you say this with a straight face? Of do you have your fingers crossed?
I think you are misleading the public with that statement. We will see revenue as soon as the first rent cheque is cashed. I think that you are confusing profit with revenue.
Combine your lack of accounting principles with your ascertation of "lost potential revenue" (lost revenue because the building was sold) paints a picture that is mis-guided.
If we did not rent the building and continued to use it as a Town building, we would still be responsible for the upkeep of the building. How does this matter?
As to the lost potential revenue. This argument is bogus. I could claim to be a multi-millionaire; but I lost potential income because I did not get hired as Frank Stronach's golf caddy. But, I am still a millionaire. Was there a buyer for the property? How long was the property available to be sold after Hydro left? If there was potential revenue from a sale, it should have been realized by now. To factor fantasy money into financial justification is misguided.
If Hydro never vacated the building, we would still be in a situation of having to "fufill a Town function". If "ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we would all have a lovely Christmas".
So, we will receive revenue. As far as profit is concerned. Since when has the municipality been in the business of making a profit?
The way I see it, we have a long-term tennant in a building that was not producing revenue before. The tennant is providing full and part-time jobs to local residents. We have formed a partnership with a level of government beyond what we normally do.
It's not a bad deal.
E. That story has legs. Are you and the Town of Aurora going to let Ballard or the Banner break it out of its box?
ReplyDeleteThe Pefferlaw Post is swifter with news and they only publish every 2 weeks. Almost an entire day and not a squeak from Aurora's so-called publicity department, Watts might be right on that call. Did or did not Aurora take a giant step forward ?
ReplyDelete2:28 PM
ReplyDeleteYou say it is not a " bad deal." Surely you are not suggesting that it is a good one. It is abysmal and you know it.
"Matt Maddocks letter in Auroran"
ReplyDelete... is disingenuous twaddle. An incorporated non-profit organization cannot be equated to a "business" - a fact of which I'm sure Mr Maddocks is well aware. But, it is nice to see him and his wife attending events at the centre.
Dear Anonymous, 16 February, 2012 2:02 PM;
ReplyDeleteAs I have for some time, I remain reluctant to engage in conversation, blog or otherwise, with anyone who doesn't have the basic common decency to introduce themselves. However, in this case, my response is simply to correct a false statement on your part. Aside from attending the winter indoor farmers market events in support of our local vendors, my wife and I have never attended an event at the Cultural Centre. Not that we wouldn't, as there appear to be some exciting shows and artists booked for the months ahead. But to date, we have not attended any events.
Perhaps you have me confused with another disingenuous twaddler?
Hmm,you're contradicting yourself, Mr Maddocks. You have admittedly attended events at the centre (no biggie) - the "winter indoor farmers' market events" can't be disqualified or discounted for whatever reason. There is no "Aside" and there is no "never" - now, please do yourself a favour and drop the shovel and step out of the hole.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Matt, they are really really nasty which I think indicates that they might be feeling the heat. All pretense at co-operation has flown out the window. But none of us believed in any of that hooey in the first place. Threaten a nest of any species and you can expect trouble. It is a trifle ironic that this emerges from a place billed as a 'cultural' centre.
ReplyDeleteIt was likely your excellent letter to the Auroran that drew their attention and there appears to be a habit of attacking facts with venom.
.Sprite
3:51 PM
ReplyDeleteF..k off, Toto. Aurora is not Oz, nor are you any kind of wizard.
Charmed, I'm sure, 7:26 PM ... and thank you; this must be the kind of civil and thoughtful discourse to which Councillor Buck was referring.
ReplyDelete16 February, 2012 11:55 AM said:
ReplyDelete"2:28 PM
You say it is not a " bad deal." Surely you are not suggesting that it is a good one. It is abysmal and you know it."
What exactly would make you happy about this deal? Are you like Evelyn and suggest that we hang on to this asset forever waiting to sell it? How long was it available and NO ONE bought it?
We had a building that was costing us money daily for up keep and utilities. It was not suitable for the type job that we may have to build for now.
We are now receiving revenue from a previously non-revenue location.
So, not a bad deal. If we could have sold it, it would be a good deal. Based on those factors, I don't think that was anything better coming.