Worcester Telegram Building and New York Times

To contact us Click HERE
The more I read this, the more frustrated I get. Why are tax-payers even mentioned. The WBDC bought the building and it looks like they agreed to 300k back from the New York Times. They have gotten 200,000 already of tax-payer monies and now they want more? This has nothing to do with the New York Times or tax-payers, this is their problem. Again I have no doubt they will get all the free tax payer monies they need. The message we send is just buy the building, don't worry about any expenses the tax payers will bail you out.

Sutner on Worc State Signs

To contact us Click HERE
Good story today. The part I found most interesting was I was on task force about a Pilot Program about ten years which led to the creation of the UniverCity Partnership chaired by Armand Carriere. Great idea but a complete waste of time, for reasons that I would rather not get into. The driving point was to get the colleges to buy local. In this story please note Worcester State dropped their local ad firm for a Boston based firms and non of the signs were bought from a Worcester company.

Go Local NY Times Agrees to pay clean-up?

To contact us Click HERE
Title of story, click here .     No way can this be true, let me explain.    Everyone knew that there was contamination there and if you own a building that has 21 E problems you own them forever, you can not walk away from them.    As result owners usually have to perfrom remediation before they are able to sell. Or it they do sell they come to agreement as to how much the seller will pay for future remediation. 

Here is how the NY Times and WBDC sale probably went down:

• They agree to very low sale price of 300,000 because of contamination
• WBDC not too worried since they think that they will
• WBDC agrees not to hold the NY Times repsonsible for any clean-up costs and maybe there agreed to a number.  Think I read that somewhere.   Lets say they agreed to reimburse back 200,000?

My guess is that if there was any vote by the New York Times, it was to pay the agree reimbursment at the time of sale.   No way is the NewYork Times pay all the clean-up costs, since if they were they would have never sold the building for 300,000.