Im not sure what to make of yesterdays article in the Era regarding The mayor no longer supporting the Newberry Commons project or developers. Mr Riel claims that he backed out to protect good landlords, future private development and do whats best for the city. Do i see a hint of the old Tom Riel, or is there more going on here than meets the eye? If you read between the lines, it looks like Mr. Riel and a minority on council are against this, and a majority may still support the project. So Mr. Riel just needs to sway one other council member if my math is correct. Is there a power struggle between the all powerful OECD, Pitt and city hall?

We ALL Thought that the "Newbury Commons" project was on a "Fast Track" process through backdoor negotiations. Land Swaps/Demolitions appeared to "Be A Done DEAL"; what stopped the "Powers That Be" so suddenly? Maybe they realized that the "Payments In Lieu of Taxes" proposal wouldn't be able to be "Enforced" through a Legal Contract. Dunno, but Something Is Definitely Up...Anybody Hear Anything Through the Grapevine? Next Up Is the "Zoning Hearing Board" on February 5 @ 7 PM in City Hall to discuss/rule on the properties on 38-46 State Street & 70-76 North Center Street to be Demolished. Stay Tuned!

Good post trailguy, anyone else have any input?

In The Era today, at least one councilman says that we need senior citizen housing, hence the need for the NewBury Commons. Well, we HAD senior citizen housing once-- wasn't that who the High Rise and Emery Towers were earmarked for? Now they're overrun with young lowlifes and criminals who are "disabled". What's to prevent this situation from happening again? And, as Mayor Riel said, our population has shrunk considerably. Who will replace the senior tenants as they end their earthly journeys?

I've looked at the Housing Visions website and it looks damn good, but still don't trust it. You know what they say about things that look too good to be true--!

The OECD must have some vacancies, or is it a conspiracy?

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I sort of remember an article in the Era, where the Mayor or somebody from City Council or the OECD said that the non-profit builders of Newbury Commons would be making a payment in lieu of taxes that would be equal to, OR GREATER THAN what they would have to pay as regular accessed taxes would have been.

I even thought the mayor said that in the past.

Which is it? Would their "payment in lieu of taxes" be greater than the actual tax they would owe or would it be as the mayor seems to now be indicating, 1.5% of what their accessed taxes should be? (from his recent quote in the Era). I do understand that the Era often gets things wrong. But it seems the mayor was once on board with Newbury Commons and tried to sell us the idea, and now has done an abrupt about face on it. IF you can believe what was in the Era.

And I would think Dingle-Berry Commons would be a better name, since the whole idea stinks so bad! It had to have come from somebody's ass rather than their head!

Do we really have THREE city council members who still think this is a good idea? "Bradford is hurting financially, so we need less property owners paying taxes"? FOR REAL?

Did I hear right that the newest council member is a flip-flopper on this, and other issues?