Peru Mall wants a 42 percent cut in taxes
We all would like to large percentage of our property taxes cut also and with the continual increases more people will move on to states and cities where this does not happen and business is doing well.
8 comments:
Peru Mall ='s high rent + total lack of modernization and promotion. The Peru Mall has served it time and should be demolished. The reduction of 42% that the malls ownership has asked for is proof.
People, anytime big business wants a 42% cut in property taxes it is worth your time to become interested. This money is going to come from somewhere and it is most likely going to be you. Like the idea or not start to participate or you will pay.
The mall is challenging the assessed value of its property. No one would complain if a resident challenged the value of their home. Many people do this every year and successfully lower their tax bill. The mall should only pay taxes on the fair value of its property and has every right to ask for the value to be adjusted. Just like any other person they will have to provide values of other comparable properties for the county to review. Probably, they will get some relief but not the full 42%.
8:30 PM
Yes the mall should pay taxes on the fair value of its property. I picture that the value of property has increased from the days of the 1970's when it was built and the 1st major development of property north of Shooting Park road.
The owners of the Mall are now feeling the effects of being their own worst enemy. They have not remodeled for too many years, never have updated the outside appearance of the structure are known to charge a ridiculous amount of rent, and never doing any promotions. Now that the Mall has lost 2 major stores of the 3 it will empty out soon after Christmas to become a outlet or demolished such as was done in a Blooming Mall.
Yes property has increased in value since the 1970s due to a concept known as inflation. But malls have decreased in value, especially recently with the rise of on-line shopping due to a concept known as the free market economy. This is true not just in Peru but all across the country, not just with the Peru mall owners but all mall owners with those rural malls.
I have been out of town and read where Dimmick is not happy with the Mall looking to put a tif in to help with the redevelopment of the property.
1 If nothing is done then it closes and everyone will loose no money for those rich famers.
2 Peru looses the sales tax dollars and the mall becomes a vacant shell where the vagrants can go.
3 put the tif in and rebuild the mall to something the area can be proud of and generate "first jobs" and bring in modern stores.
Truth be known that some of the stores the Peru Mall had and has are more of the class C grade rather than a A or B. Class C receives the goods that have not sold at a A or B store. Do you really think that the City of Peru has any say so or control of how the owner merchandises the mall or how each individual store merchandises their products i.e. Peru sold a building rather rapidly to a individual with the agreement that a gourmet hamburger restaurant would be established within 6 months and tax revenue would be increased. Presently, over 2 years later, the 1st floor is a indoor parking garage for his cars and the 2nd floor has been built into a rental apartment. Unfortunely the city government of Peru has a philosophy of working with a person by the judgement of who you are and whether you have a favorable position in the food chain of the "inner circle" rather than fair and equal evaluations. Recent evidence is the newest parking lot in the city. This lot has been in the development stages for over two years and enhanced by the fact the city economic director owns the building next to it and the building directly across the street in which a gaming parlor and a beauty shop are located. To be connected is in the no-no stage but to be the man involved in all questionable stages of a situation answers for itself. In situations such as this it may have been best to resign.
1:04AM
Very outstanding comment! It has been evident that several of MAYOR Harls appointments are openly utilizing their positions to strengthen their own personal goals rather than city gains which the Mayor has created them for. Perhaps Mayor Baker had a present individual or two hired in his administration but having a much more hands on philosophy and experience in management than Mayor Harl. Mayor Baker controlled such self conscience empire builders. Mayor Baker did not accept the thought of multi tasking. Nor accepting an employee who begins as an unpaid volunteer position, who then in turn started a private business which included a "Peru expense account". Then asked for a employee compensation of $25,000/year plus received the appointees unlimited city power. Mayor Harl has plenty of time to rectify these procedures having 3 years left in his 3rd term. It will be interesting to evaluate what he does. The city council as a whole will also have to take an open stance on their opinions of obvious flaws in the present city government proceedings.
Post a Comment