[RP TownTalk] Cafritz mailing

[Joe Kelly]

The recent mailing soliciting support for the Cafritz Property addresses
the matter of a CSX crossing as if it were a done deal. It is time that
all of us take the blinders off about that part of the proposal. There
are four possible sources of funding: the developer, the University of
Maryland, the county, and the state.

Contrary to popular belief, Jane and Calvin Cafritz are not going to
pull out their personal checkbook to build this development. To make
their vision come true, they will need to amass a group of investors. To
do that, they must provide an estimated rate of return on the
investment. The Cafritzes cannot possibly agree to funding the bridge
before they line up their investors because costs would be too high to
be attractive. Attempting to secure the money from investors later in
the process would be even more difficult. If the return on investment
comes as promised, why would investors spend more after their initial
investment? If the returns don't materialize, why would investors spend
money on a losing bet?

The university, which owns the land on the east side of the tracks, is
not in the business of developing land to enrich other parties. Any
construction project the university undertakes currently must guarantee
full capacity immediately after the ribbon-cutting ceremony. A bridge
that does not benefit the university directly would not be considered a
wise use of the school's money. The best the developer can hope for is
favorable terms to buy or lease the university's land. It's foolish to
think that the university will donate a dime to actual construction.

County Executive Baker recently stated that the county is facing a $100
million budget shortfall. That, coupled with the waiver of Real Property
taxes that he proposes as a way to promote developments like this, would
indicate that county financing is extremely unlikely.

The state faces similar budget woes. The legislature would not approve
funding any bridge or tunnel that would benefit a single development.
With five vehicular crossings within three miles of the site, it's a
good bet that SHA considers the area well enough served.

In conclusion, citizens, officials, and developers alike need to
consider what this development will be like without a CSX crossing
because IT WILL NEVER BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE TO BUILD THAT BRIDGE. The
current R-55 zoning has been, and will continue to be, the proper use
for the land.

Happy New Year, same as the old year(s).
-- 
  Joe Kelly
  mrjoekelly at operamail.com

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...