Quote:
Originally Posted by iaudit
I think the problem with negotiating a settlement on the previous purchases is that it would impact all future purchases. As I mentioned in a previous post, most of the amenities south of both 466 and 466A have not been purchased by the central districts. If they have to purchase these facilities with taxable bonds that carry a higher interest rate, it could significantly impact the amount that the developer will receive for these facilities.
In reviewing your figures in the first table, the principal amount does not agree with the total bonds issued which is $426 million, not $50 million. I don't know why the budgets would have the principal and interest for these bonds, they were purchased by outside interests, not the central districts.
|
What makes you think that the price that the developer will get for these amenities will be dictated by the tax status of the bonds used to pay for them? When you buy a car, does the car dealer ask you how much your financing will cost before he tells you how much he will sell the car to you for? While this
may be part of the sale-price equation for Morse, it certainly doesn't have to be.