Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Dunkirk Meadows no more

$3.5 million housing project nixed

February 10, 2013

By NICOLE GUGINO OBSERVER Assistant News Editor After months of no communication from the developer of the Dunkirk Meadows Housing Project, the town of Dunkirk recently received news of the......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(20)

225522

Feb-10-13 1:28 AM

Too much opposition. Pick up your marbles and go home.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Deloniak

Feb-10-13 7:37 AM

If I'm an investor and willing to invest in area no one else is willing to invest in why should I be subject to ridicule and jump through hoops of the bureaucratic red tape? Pick up my marbles (money) and go home...you betchya...In fact that is why instead of opening two of my busiensses in Chautauqua County, I chose Erie County...Anyways...the losts are better suited for overgrown weeds..that will bring in tax money...Maybe we should also find out what is impeding the efforts to develope the former Tops site...Ollies was reportedly set to move in...But Tops currently still pays the lease on the building...and the town wants to many improvements/enhancements to the property...which is why it sits vacant.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SJMinTX

Feb-10-13 7:50 AM

A sad testament to Chautauqua County. Every time a business wants to invest in the area, either government or the neighbors shoot 'em down. Then you all sit back and wonder why taxes are so high, why there is such high unemployment and why the county is on downward spiral. It's because you all constantly seem to want to commit economic suicide by shooting down every good thing that comes your way. It's been that way for 30 years. The housing stock in and around Dunkirk is pretty much ANCIENT. As are the ideals of county and municipal leadership.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

popawheelie

Feb-10-13 8:33 AM

open a business, it was state and federal money to build what in the end would of amounted to projects. it is moneys to create jobs and this project was only making jobs to build it I don't think a good use of the moneys. this idea were created down state and developed down state and was shoved down are throats to control this region share of the money. use the money to help existing companies grow or at the very least stay here.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KeepinItReal4U

Feb-10-13 9:04 AM

Well another one bites the dust. Not long ago someone wanted to do something with the old Flickenger warehouse & that had many ppl in a tizzy now this DK Meadows is another development that is down the toilet.But I have this gut feeling we will get that new CASINO ON THE LAKE> like we really need that.OTB dwindled down & closed & that is exactly what a Casino will do especially in this small blink of an eye & you are out of this city location.Look at all the Industries that are closing & or downsizing!! Unemployment only lasts but so long then what? Before you know it Dunkirk will be a ghost city with only minimal Businesses open for operation.Taxes are going to con't to rise whether or not if new buildings are built,or new Businesses come to this area.No matter what idea is brought up as a potential business,etc to be brought to Dk it is thrown into the "boiling pot of negativity".

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commentor

Feb-10-13 9:09 AM

This would have just created another welfare dump. No business was coming in. Look around you business is leaving. Just another waste of taxpayer money. The state isn't supporting schools to provide good education to children but they spend millions on building welfare dumps for the lazy dregs of society who will do nothing but promote generational welfare for the future.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Feb-10-13 9:09 AM

Remember when Saturn was considering the site in the Town of Sheridan. Does anyone remember why that didn't come to fruition?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Feb-10-13 9:11 AM

I could not figure out how this project was "economic development". It was a housing unit. If anyone thinks we do not have enough housing in this area come on down my street where we have at least five very nice homes for sale, at reasonable prices!

No what we need is JOBS! Use this money to invest in a business that will HIRE people, at rates of pay that they can support a family.

I do not understand how the Chamber could support this project when it was not to bring jobs into this area. Only more costs to tax payers, with increased enrollment in school, police and fire protection, road maintenance, etc.

Give that money to local REAL economic developers to help promote real jobs for the people.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Feb-10-13 9:30 AM

To all the forcasters of doom had this been private money building non subsidized fully taxed project I would agree with you but it was not. Simply more taxpayer money wasted we need jobs not more low income housing!

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bob1957

Feb-10-13 9:37 AM

Welfare housing it was not perhaps the rocket scientists here could think. I doubt it. It WAS JOBS JOBS JOBS do you think the housing spontaneously appears upon signing documents, Construction jobs. Next this housing for families that have jobs, not welfare and need a decent place to live. It is referred to as moderate income housing the yahoos here are talking about very low income housing-this is welfare housing. Lastly, the funds are available for moderate income housing in what is generally referred to as low income housing. Too bad, as is sooo very often, people talk here from an orfice that was not designed speak. So once again the great politicians of a useless town governemnt prevented constrcution jobs here, great job YOUR killing jobs in OUR county but hey you know bets, just ask yourself and you will tell yourself your right because as is always true everyone else doesn't understand nor have your information/background knowledge-why is that-WHY? Government for all not pols.

0 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

shofuh

Feb-10-13 10:16 AM

think people, think.

this is state money for housing. You either take it for housing or you dont get anything. What the town of dunkirk has done is throw these tax funds away, it will instead go to another area of the state use it instead, for housing. On top of that, the housing in this area is quite disgusting. The area is in desperate need of new housing and we threw away our opportunity.

As for jobs, no companies are going to relocate here when they see the obstacles these towns use to stop development. Sad. You are all too dumb for your own good.

1 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PhilJulian

Feb-10-13 10:22 AM

Wouldn't it be nice if the city of Dunkirk could re-visit the decision for 100 units of low income housing. That decuision was forced down our throats and the damage done can't be measured. Along with urban renewal low income housing was the death of Dunkirk. Anything that looks or smells like low income housing should be immediately rejected. If government insists on throwing money away they should consider a rehab project for the many units of run down property in the city. It was government money that destroyed the City of Dunkirk.

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Feb-10-13 10:39 AM

shofuh good if the project goes elsewhere so will the subsidized occupants. Bob1957 sounds like you where ready to move in sorry to ruin your plans maybe if they wanted to put it in your back yard it would be different! Remember the subsidized housing behind JCC that was supposed to be for unwed mothers to attend college now it is lowincome housing just like the meadows project would become down the road we need long term jobs not short term construction jobs!

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bulldog10

Feb-10-13 11:21 AM

Do you really think the people will go elsewhere if the housing isn't built? No. They will stay here and live in crappy housing instead of new housing that will look good for the next 20 years or so. Plus the taxes on those new housing units. What should occur is that for every one unit of new housing put up one old unit needs to be taken down, that would limit new welfare cases from moving in.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Escapee

Feb-10-13 1:11 PM

Bulldog10, you mentioned “Plus the taxes on those new housing units.” The meadows projects were not going to pay any taxes. One of the biggest problems with these government created businesses is that they use taxpayer money to get started, and then get waivers so that they don’t pay taxes.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

julieort

Feb-10-13 2:16 PM

The Town of Dunkirk did not need low income housing at a sharply discounted tax rate to cause pressure on already limited public services. Thank you to those few on the board with the courage to make the right call. Those opposed here have missed the entire scope of all that was involved. Those that followed this story, attended the meetings and signed the petition against it understand that we need development in jobs and tax contributions. This was wrong on many levels. Kudos to Regan to understand why it was bad decision to go forward. Town and local leaders, please don't repeat this mistake and try again go around the process and sneak another deal like this through.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Chuck392

Feb-10-13 4:33 PM

Looks like Dunkirk got lucky for once and this potential bad development went away.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mookie

Feb-10-13 7:15 PM

Score one for the citizens that cared enough to protest the building of more housing units in the Dunkirk area. What's the old saying "you build it they will come". How many more housing projects can this area sustain? Who is going to continue to pay the property taxes. We don't need more housing, we need landlords that take care of their properties. They need to be vigilant and check on what goes on with the units. Use the money to fix up existing houses that are in disrepair. Jamestown just built a new housing project at the site of the old VFW on Second Street. At least on a weekly basis the police are there checking on drug dealers. Beautiful apartments, subsidized by the government and still it is not enough those that wish to abuse the system. in order to attract working families to this beautiful area we need jobs. Mr. Goodell certainly didn't help this cause when he left all those vacant areas that were to be used for industrial development sitting idle.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamesamuscato

Feb-10-13 9:35 PM

JoeW where is Saturn now?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Feb-11-13 7:56 AM

A rent of about $800 a month for a three bedroom, I do not even consider this 'low income' housing. Gosh, for that amount people could purchase a house, with taxes and insurance, and not have their mortgage payments that high.

This money came out of state funds for ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. To me, that is exactly what the funds need to be used for. Development say of the waterfront to bring more JOBS here. Not just construction jobs that are over as soon as the project is completed. But Jobs that will stay here. Jobs that people could support their families on. Jobs that will contribute to our overall economy not take from it.

Hope the economic development folks act quickly and try to get the money for a durable, job creating, project. We all know we sure could use real economic development in this area.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 20 of 20 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web