Tom makes a good point that our board should agree about the cost of building the lot. I thought that the difference in opinion had to do with the concept of sunk costs. I thought Trustee Sacchi mentioned it. If he was the one that said the costs of purchasing the homes were not "sunk" until the parking lot was built, he was wrong. Probably most people here know that "sunk costs" are a financial concept used specifically to help decide if you should complete an unfinished project. Since costs already spent are unrecoverable, the decision rests on what else can be done with the future costs of the project that can generate a better return. I guess the question is also what can be done with the property that can generate a better return in a comparable time frame. Because building the lot doesn't hurt the value of the property, you have to wonder what else can be done with $56,000 that can actually produce revenue or enhance the value of the CBD. If $56,000 is the difference between providing other essential services or not, we are truly in trouble.
It also seemed to me that the change in how to finance the purchase is hurting us in the short term. Using the capital improvement fund rather than financing it through the parking fund. Does anyone have any insight on how we were helped or hurt by the change in financing?
For the record, I was for the purchase of those two homes on Burlington. Many properties on Burlington and Quincy are blighted. Homes that back up against the railroad tracks are likely difficult to sell - some seem to breed crime. Few communities along that Burlington have any properties that back up to the tracks - let alone single family homes. Our village is unattractive when your ride through it on the train. Berwyn, Brookfield, LaGrange do not have debris and overgrown weeds in their rail beds. They do not have unsightly barricades that prevent passage over the tracks - like the one we have on Hebert. I would like our village to look as attractive as possible. Perhaps then, people who can afford the taxes will want to move here.
The village owns an asset that they can sell or use to produce revenue or enhance the revenue producing potential of the CBD. The "master builders" seized an opportunity to improve the village. Leaving those two homes alone provided no opportunity and their loss from the tax roles is small comparitively. The taxes those two homes paid won't help us avoid a tax increase, any more than not spending the $56,000.
