I can take no credit for Micheal’s “knee jerk” analysis as you call it than I could claim credit for your posting either.

Liam

If the total investment of private loans lent to McWhinney and partner for Promenade Shops (~$114 million) plus the public monies invested together exceeds ~$150 million but the bank couldn’t get a bid at foreclosure of even $80 million — than the money wasn’t well spent.

Return on invested capital (or leveraging the parts to create a greater whole) is the essence of how wealth is created in our capitalist system. Instead of seeing a return on their investment the lenders were left with something worth less than the money they lent McWhinney and partner thus failing to provide a return on that invested capital for their depositors.

The fallacy of your reasoning is clear as day. You are assuming ANYONE given the same resources would have achieved equal outcomes. That is a grossly over simplified generalization common to central control economies that fails to understand why our country is the world’s largest economy and so wealthy.

Commercial developments occur all over Colorado and the country where the final project is of greater value than the money invested. The difference in Promenade Shops is competence and experience of the developer. Failure to manage the risks associated with such a project (like a inevitable downturn in commercial real estate) were not reflected in the very short-term risky financing plans.

In addition, the big box style retail surrounded by low-maintenance landscaping isn’t attractive to everyone. Many decisions including removing the frontage road (making it less accessible) and forcing people to drive through the entire shopping center were judgement calls made by the developer that impacted the final project’s value and economy.

Put another way, if you gave $150 million to 10 different people in Loveland to develop a retail center in that area you would get back 10 different ideas, styles and construction concepts – each with a different return. In a capitalist system, only the most efficient, productive and capable developers can attract capital (other people’s money) to implement their ideas. In a centrally controlled economy (former USSR) such decisions are only political and not economic.

While Key Bank is licking its wounds for their loss the holder’s of Centerra’s (Loveland) public bond debt are not. They expect to be repaid for another 20 years from taxes diverted away from Loveland, the school district and other governmental entities through future tax revenues flowing to Centerra for the purpose of repaying the bond debt.

So I hope you plan on eating at Centerra with your friends a lot over the next 20 years. In fact, even until 2040 if McWhinney succeeds in again stretching out the debt obligation now that council approved their request.

Just remember, you are not helping Loveland necessarily but instead the municipal bond holders who are being paid through the diverted taxes (fees). If you want to help Loveland, eat outside Centerra so the city will get the full benefit of any sales taxes generated along with the property taxes the tenants pay.

Gannett’s condescending tripe or not, your analysis on that dog story was knee-jerk silly.

As for the road show, I liked that story LP published about that, if what you say is true about that deal. You may have a justified grudge regarding the Marostica ads and wanting to point out mistakes by the local newspapers, but on it’s own, it was a worthwhile story for people to know about.

So essentially, the taxpayers were forced to massively subsidize a private development that was allowed to suck away nearly $600 million in our taxes…to undercut other established businesses in the established city.

Steve’s arguments stem from the assumption that Centerra itself was a good, and therefore, we couldn’t have had that good without this public subsidy. Aside from the fundamental error in assumption (as argued above), it is absurd to say that, EVEN IF we were to agree that Centerra were overall a good thing, that we wouldn’t have had a development without the subsidy. That suggests that private development in the free market is impossible or always/usually unsuccessful. That’s obviously a falsehood and absurdity.
Assuming that the local government would have okayed a similar but privately-funded development, it would have happened…but only when market conditions made it MORE LIKELY to be successful / less of a gamble. The use of public moneys made it possible to ignore such market demand; i.e. to be far more speculative. So, it could also be argued that the public subsidy made this project even LESS likely to be successful, because there is less accountability.

My only personal knowledge of the situation is from a visit to a former resident there. To an outsider, it certainly looked like a nice place for seniors. A renter, she was quite frustrated, especially in the total costs compared to the sales pitch that drew them in; I think she said the rents had increased a LOT over that which she initially agreed to, so she could no longer afford it.

Anyway, from the prices you cite, this is clearly not what I nor most I know would consider “affordable” housing; so I’m sad to learn that public subsidies were involved in something quite less than affordable.

If you didn’t know, Hardy sold his soul to the Devil when he was working for the county to negotiate the Embassy Suites deal and than jumped the county ship for a higher salary offer from Chad and Troy McWhinney to help them take the hotel deal away from the county.

Hardy did have a good relationship with the Embassy Suites people when he worked for the county but once Hammond (the big guy) found out what he was doing by trying to use those relationships for the McWhinneys his credibility was shot.

The bigger more successful hotel developers still value ethics and know an employee who will screw his former employer for more money is just as willing to do it for the next guy kinda like marrying your mistress never works out in the long run.

We have a joke around the county offices that Jay had to buy a house in Weld County so emergency services would use more than piss to put out the fire.

These are not good people and you guys are the only ones with the courage to say it like it is. Keep up the good work!