Comments on: Comment of the Day: The Value of Failed Developments

By: BubbaG

BubbaG — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:17:13 +0000

We have very few white elephants…now if you want to have a discussion head over to Florida….all things considered we are lucky to have come out as well as we did…so to me from a city standpoint this is not a big deal, for the people involved (investors, buyers, etc.) it is everything. So where you looking from makes all the difference.

By: movocelot

movocelot — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:37:48 +0000

cool.

By: TheNiche

TheNiche — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:43:41 +0000

I have good news for you, movocelot. With great patience you will find deep satisfaction. You needn’t even lift a finger; it will just come to you, as if it were your destiny. So sayeth yogi Niche.

By: movocelot

movocelot — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:33:53 +0000

I still can’t see how an empty tower or two of aging materials & design, is better that an empty lot full of sunshine, views & maybe even wildflowers…
Just sayin’ if that out-of-town investment built something that could actually be sold, bring tax-payers to town & create traffic for local businesses, it would be better. Better even that sunshine, views & wildflowers.

By: d

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:40:50 +0000

it’s easy to gloat when developers (and banks) get into trouble, but I have to agree this project is a much better alternative to the urban fabric than a vacant lot would be. in the long term, the financials will work out for the city and county.

By: TheNiche

TheNiche — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:18:44 +0000

Since this quote was ripped from its context, let me clarify that this was a response to a real estate neophyte that thought that the financial failure at Mosaic somehow undermined local government entities and local citizens, when from a purely fiscal standpoint, the City of Houston, Harris County, HISD, and ever other taxing entity with jurisdiction including Mosaic wins out. I’d argue that the locals net out ahead of the game, as well; Texas as a state doesn’t get anywhere near its fair share of redistributed wealth returned to us, so to the extent that we can’t keep the process of redistribution from happening (and we obviously can’t), every little bit that comes back home should be considered welcome news. I just wish someone would let Rick Perry know that.

By: Random Poster

Random Poster — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:40:58 +0000

RWB writes: The FDIC is funded by insurance payments by member banks and thrift institutions, not taxes.

Well, yes, but the FDIC payments made by banks come from somewhere, either from, for example, higher interest rates charged on loans made by the bank, increased fees paid by bank customers, or lower interest rates given on deposits owned by the bank’s customers, all of which are, effectively, “a tax.”

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:30:32 +0000

Allow me to re-phrase. You ask: Where is the downside in redistributing wealth through a government agency to float the Mosaic? Commissar Obama would be equally pleased.

RWB- Your assistance rustling up 60 Senate votes will be needed as well.

By: RWB

RWB — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:21:36 +0000

The FDIC is funded by insurance payments by member banks and thrift institutions, not taxes. While I think TheNiche is being a bit cavalier, he is not talking about tax dollars floating anything.

Now if you will excuse me, Commissar Obama has asked for my help suppressing some kulaks. All power to the workers’ and farmers’ soviet!

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:58:54 +0000

You ask: where’s the downside in government entities supported by tax dollars floating a project like Mosaic? Commisar Obama could not have proposed the question better himself.