Comments on: Keeping TIFs from a public tiff

By: bth

bth — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:34:34 +0000

On eminent domain – it is interesting that my conversation with the attorney was with one who was pretty much a ‘hawk’ on private property rights. However he agreed that there must be exceptions.

By: bwilson

bwilson — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:50:55 +0000

Or leased, as the ground under the SC Telcom building was prior to its acquisition by the Minnesota Guys. Good point.

There’s a happy medium that can and should be reached here, and I think the Kansas City model is a start – with citizen and elected oversight. I’m inclined to agree that the city’s been a little too anxious to partner with developers without dealing their constituents in on the decision. It’s just hard for me to find fault with their willingness to buy into these deals.

The danger still falls, I think, in the short-sightedness of the “no taxes, no way” attitude. Would Oklahoma City’s Bricktown have become an entertainment mecca without a publicly-voted bond issue? The answer is a categorical no, but maybe we can learn something from the approach.

Without Bricktown, though, Oklahoma City doesn’t become a major league sports city.

By: bth

bth — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:10:53 +0000

I think there can be another role for local government here – assembling small parcels for re-development. There is a national brogram called ‘brownfields’ that relates to this since in many cases there are also environmental issues to be considered. This also brings in another can of worms – eminent domain. While I instinctively tend to oppose eminent domain there are exceptions. One might be in a situation where many parcels have been assembled via negotiation but a couple of small pieces remain. In some cases, in fact, a fractional ownership might exist where the owner cannot even be found or things are tied up in probate etc. So, some mechanism to assemble these needs to exist.

Some years ago I discussed this issue with an attorney who specialized in fighting eminent domain matters. Even he agreed that there is a place for its use.

It is so easy to go out in the country and buy a Section of land from a farmer. It can be MUCH harder to do the same in a City with a hundred owners. Add environmental due diligence issues and a lot of developers will just walk away. So, the need for mechanisms.

By: bwilson

bwilson — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:41:18 +0000

ictBest and bth make precise and accurate points, with the latter pointing out accurately how TIFs can stray from their intended purpose.

As for the free market point above, I think history is pretty clear: Downtown didn’t redevelop at all. It deteriorated, and a deteriorating downtown benefits no one. I don’t agree – at all – that the public has no proper role in development.

I agree with ictBest – TIFs are miscast as a government giveaway. As I may not have been clear enough earlier, they are a tax revenue deferral that’s a bet on the part of governments in the success of a redevelopment district. That would be why it’s essential, I think, for governments to remain vigilant on projects after they grant a TIF.

By: bth

bth — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:38:49 +0000

I agree that they can be good things when used properly. However, when used to pay for things that wuld normally be paid for by the developers (e.g. parking) then I wonder if they are going too far. Even with streets etc – I am paying for the streets in my development myself – while still paying property taxes. An alternative to a TIF in such cases might be a benefit district.

I favor TIFs in places like KenMar and Central/hillside. In these developments we also have substantial private investment – the TIF is a catalyst. However, in some others the magnitude of public investment is just too large – and these are the ones having problems paying off their bonds.

My favorite sports bar – Players – had to pay for the parking lot I use when I go there to watch a ball game. Why should their competition (Heros, Oscars) have their parking funded through tax dollars?

By: ictBest

ictBest — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:43:06 +0000

I think some of your forget what TIF’s really do.

What it does it helps pay for the public access improvements in the area. They are not free give-a-ways to developers.

What the City wants to do is redo the streets (converting some of the one-ways to two-way, sidewalks, street lighting, public parking, tear down blighted and abandon buildings, landscaping and etc. This take a considerable amount of money to do, and what the TIF does it helps pay for that cost by the property tax collected in that district.

The county and the school district wouldn’t get their take from the area until it was repaid, and that is the ONLY draw back. It is intra-governmental fighting over who gets to keep the tax dollars for their coffers.

I think that TIF’s are a very good thing. It gets things done.

By: bth

bth — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:05:57 +0000

I’d like to see a required ration of private:public. I think when you look at the ones I mentioned above you will see that the ‘good’ ones had a large ratio; the ‘not-so-good’ ones a low ratio.

By: Freeman

Freeman — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:04:57 +0000

What is wrong with letting individual actors in the free-market sort out the winners and losers? Why do governments always feel the need to take from some and give to others?

It isn’t a given that development anywhere “needs” to be a public-private partnership. Governments should get out of the way and let the market work.

By: bwilson

bwilson — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:44:51 +0000

There are certainly some parameters that could be established, Jerry. I agree.

“No TIFs,” though, wouldn’t be one of them, in my view.

By: jerry

jerry — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:25:17 +0000

“Does the creation of a commission and a cost-benefit analysis accomplish that?”

I believe that is an excellent start. I would only add that I would set some type of “not-to-exceed” financial number on the City Council and if that was to be exceeded it needed to be on the ballot.