Albany voters have the chance to vote on a proposal to sell one school for $2.5 million and to buy another school for the same price.
The sameness of the price is being pitched as a good thing, supposedly making the deal "no cost."
On the face of it that claim is wrong. The school purchase will cost $2.5 million, even if the money comes from another sale.
And the deal just doesn't seem right. Why would the seller and buyer agree to a price that is exactly the same? What are the chances that both prices are right? What are the chances that either of the prices is right?
To the buyer and seller, the prices are right. That's why they're agreeing to the deal. Maybe they're both getting a better deal than expected. For buyers and sellers, that's always good.
The problem is: Albany taxpayers are in the middle. What if we're buying too high and selling too low? Should we be happy with the deal?
The Livingston building is no longer useful as a school or much else, I suspect, but how many 12-plus-acre parcels are around for development in Albany, near major highways? Maybe it would make sense to hold the property with minimal maintenance until a developer is willing to pay much more than $2.5 million. Is sale for a claimed conversion to a retirement home even sensible from an urban-development perspective.
And the New Covenant building, though cheap at $2.5 million, perhaps should be cheaper still. It has just been sitting, boarded-up, costing money for the owner to maintain. And it is only possibly needed for enrollment expansion in the future. Also, it is not a building put in a location of Albany's choosing. Why not wait? Perhaps we should be able to get it for $1 or at least under a $1 million. Maybe we shouldn't buy it at all. It likely can't be used for much other than a school, so why rush to give the bondholders $2.5 million and for maintenance costs to shift to us?
The school pass-through deal just doesn't look right.
DAVE HARDIN
Albany