Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & blawgs
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Law & Letters
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
ADW blog
Father Z
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
The Anchoress
Whatever
Editor's Note: Our regular commenter Rich Horton has done some excellent original reporting by securing an interview with documentary filmmaker Philip Klein, about his new film on eminent domain abuse. At Rich's kind invitation, we're cross-posting it here. The original is available at Rich's own, excellent blog, The Iconic Midwest.
Philip Klein wants to build a better battering ram.
You might not think that is the the type of metaphor an eminent domain abuse crusader would employ, but Klein is a "fight fire with fire" sort if ever there was one.
"I think the tide is changing. People are learning what to do to make a battering ram to knock open the door and restore property rights to where they once were," stated Klein when I interviewed him recently about his upcoming documentary on eminent domain abuse, Begging For Billionaire$.
Klein, a Kansas City native and film maker, was taken aback by the abuses he found in both his home-town and home-state.
"Missouri has one of the worst records of eminent domain abuse in the country. Much of it is right here in Kansas City. St. Louis feels the brunt of eminent domain even more than Kansas City. And the state of Kansas is almost as bad as Missouri. Did you know the state of Kansas helped NASCAR use eminent domain to build a racetrack?"
Klein brings a boundless zeal and enthusiasm to his project and a conversation with him on the subject will bounce back and forth across the country as Klein touches upon the victories and defeats for property rights, and the past, present and future of the struggle. "Sometimes it is hard to keep all the names straight," he says somewhat sheepishly, "But, its been a hectic week."
It had at that. Just that week the Missouri Supreme Court considered a case with eminent domain implications.
BLIGHTING MILLIONAIRE ROW
Centene Plaza Redevelopment Corporation, v. Mint Properties, Inc., [pdf warning] clearly represents the absurd lengths municipalities will go in an attempt to broaden the scope of eminent domain powers. The city of Clayton, located in suburban St. Louis, had declared one of the prime real estate locations in all of Missouri "blighted" despite all evidence to the contrary. At the heart of the area was the site of the former Library Limited bookstore, well known throughout St. Louis as one of the last great large independent bookstores before it was bought and dismantled by the Borders chain.
I pull the following quotes from the defendants' brief to give readers the "flavor" of it:
The issue in this appeal is whether the concept of blight can be stretched to the point where a private corporation can condemn some of the most valuable real estate in the entire St. Louis area to pursue its own development project. The properties at issue in this appeal are located in the middle of one of Missouri’s wealthiest communities. They are situated on Forsyth Boulevard in downtown Clayton, directly across the street from the Pierre Laclede Center. There is no question that these parcels are not blighted. Plaintiff/Respondent Centene Plaza Redevelopment Corporation (“Centene”)nevertheless claims it can condemn them because they are in a redevelopment area declared blighted by Clayton. The majority of this “blighted area” consists of Centene’s Library Limited property at Hanley Road and Forsyth Boulevard that Centene bought in 2004 for $12,250,000, or for $7.4 million an acre. According to testimony at the condemnation hearing, this is the highest price per square foot ever paid for real estate in St. Louis.
To say that the defendants are "unmoved" by the contentions of the plaintiff would be an understatement:
The finding of blight is not supported either legally or factually. First, the allegedly blighted area is not a “social liability” as required by § 353.020(2)... Additionally, there was no evidence, let alone substantial evidence, to support a finding that the redevelopment area is an “economic liability” or that the conditions in the redevelopment area are “conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, crime or inability to pay reasonable taxes,” as required by § 353.020(2). In fact, the assessed values of the properties in this supposedly blighted area increased from 2000 to 2005 by 25%, the same increase as all commercial properties in Clayton during the same period and more than double the increase in the Consumer Price Index. Most significantly, the increase in assessed value for this “blighted area” is more than double the rate of increase of the majority of the blocks around the redevelopment area.
Finally, even assuming the Library Limited property was blighted, the taking of Defendants’ non-blighted properties is not “necessary” for the redevelopment of blighted property, as required by Missouri statutes. Several redevelopment plans for the allegedly blighted property had been pursued in the open market without utilizing Defendants’ properties...
The apparent deference given to Clayton’s blight findings by the trial court is misplaced. In response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, 545 U.S. 469, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005), the Missouri General Assembly enacted legislation in 2006 to make certain that blight determinations, like the one at issue here, receive increased judicial scrutiny. Section 523.261 now mandates that there be substantial evidence to support the legislative findings. Centene clearly failed to establish the requisite substantial evidence to support the legislative action. Therefore, the ordinance granting Centene the power of eminent domain is void. Furthermore, Clayton’s legislative determination of blight also fails the previous common law test (whether the findings were arbitrary or capricious, or induced by fraud, collusion or bad faith.)
The linking of increased judicial scrutiny to the U.S. Supreme Court decision on eminent domain in Kelo v. City of New London comes as no surprise to Klein:
"Kelo was the straw that broke the camel's back. At first, I think some people thought Kelo was a solution, but it made matter worse. Kelo alerted Americans to the question of property rights. As a result many states have gone back and given a hard look to their eminent domain laws."
Certainly, this increased scrutiny can be seen in the Missouri case. Even though the behavior of the city of Clayton so egregious it would have run afoul of the pre-Kelo standards, it is an open question if a pre-Kelo court would have seen it that way.
"[The question of blight] is a half-assed deal anyway," says Klein, "since so much depends on your definition. Are a couple of newspapers on the lawn evidence of blight? How about if your gutters are askew? I've seen both of those given as evidence of blight. The truth is if they want your property they will get it."
Klein makes it clear that he is not against eminent domain in all cases. "It is one thing if eminent domain is used for a road, or a school or a hospital. It is another when it is used to benefit a Fortune 500 company. After all, they can afford to pay for what they want."
Klein points to many examples of local municipalities placating large corporations. "Wal-Mart is one of the biggest abusers nationwide. I know of
a case where H&R Block used eminent domain to move their headquarters 30 blocks and had the city pick up the tab for the furnishings in the new building!
"We need redevelopment reforms badly. Corporations should not be given blank checks or private property."
LOSING OUT TO SPECIAL INTERESTS
Such reform efforts would require concerned and sympathetic politicians, but according to Klein, that is exactly what is lacking.
"The callousness of elected officials is what you notice. It is unnerving and sickening how elected officials treat citizens.
"I've known people who had only 1 weeks notice before an eminent domain hearing. They were thrown out like they were a wet dirty towel.
"Politicians are supposed to represent the people but they don't. They represent special interests. Today you can buy a politician right off the shelf, the same way you buy something at Toys-R-Us. I hate to sound so cynical but it is true. Politicians can be bought for campaign contributions.
"Politicians need to know that we can vote them out. That is the real power of democracy. We have forgotten what democracy is. You need to go out and elect people who really represent you and who wont sell out to special interest."
Klein pointed to the recent election of Mark Funkhouser to the Mayoral office in Kansas City as an encouraging sign. "Funkhouser is one of the good guys."
In his campaign, Funkhouser made an issue of an audit that showed Kansas City losing revenue due to the use of Tax Increment Financing (of TIF). TIF is a tool municipalities use in order to lure corporations to build new facilities. In theory, the large tax breaks cities give to these corporations (sometimes lasting for decades), will be made up by other revenue benefits, but many have doubts on this score. As the Kansas City Business Journal reported:
Kansas City's redirected revenue from tax increment financing projects is $233 million shy of the city's $465 million projection for TIF-financed projects, Acting City Auditor Gary White said Tuesday.
White released a draft audit on Tuesday of the city's TIF projects. The audit, which has become an issue in the city's mayoral race -- a race that includes former City Auditor Mark Funkhouser -- was released in draft form because of requests made by citizens citing the state's Sunshine Law.
...
In a summary of the TIF audit, it says that by the end of 2005, TIF plans produced just 50 percent of promised economic activity taxes (which include earnings taxes, utility taxes, etc.) and payments in lieu of taxes, or the increment between taxes on the unimproved property and on the improved property. TIF plans typically allow developers to recover all payments in lieu of taxes and half of new economic activity taxes.
Revenue from five city-backed TIF plans is insufficient to cover debt service payments, the audit says. The city has made up this gap from the general fund.
The audit calls for the city to develop a more defined economic incentive policy, including consequences when projects receiving incentives fail to deliver
planned benefits."We need a policy for economic development incentives, and then we need a method to measure its use," White said. "The new charter approved in August requires us to create an economic development policy for incentives."
It is instructive that Missouri citizens had to use legal action to get the report released, although the former Mayor of Kansas City, who was backing an opponent of Funkhouser saw it differently:
Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes on Wednesday blasted a draft audit of the city's primary development tax incentive program, calling the audit's methodology flawed and the timing of its release political.
"I am outraged by what is going on in this community," Barnes said during a news conference she called in her City Hall office. "It is time to push back hard and make it very clear that I'm not going to stand for this community to go down the drain because of some outrageous, biased, distorted, supposed facts being presented."
However, the voters of Kansas City also decided to "push back" and defeated Barnes' hand-picked successor. (One wonders if the blow back will have any detrimental effects on Barnes' own future political ambitions.)
Klein sees the TIF issue working hand-in-hand with the larger eminent domain concerns. "Businesses have been given 30 years tax free. They pit cities against each other, and businesses move city to city or state to state to get more tax breaks once the original deal runs out. When you question the politicians on this you can never get real answers. Politicians say these deals will mean more revenue, but it never happens."
COMPLACENT MEDIA
Klein also took some of the media establishment to task for shirking their responsibilities to ask tough questions.
"In general the local media is not as skeptical as they need to be. The media takes a 'go along to get along' attitude. They are afraid they will be denied access to elected officials if they do not play along.
"TV and Radio media vary somewhat, but print media tends to be very pro-developers."
Klein tells a story about asking a question of Kay Barnes at a press conference while she was Mayor that she ignored because Klein was not a "proper" reporter. "A couple of weeks later one of the newspaper guys tells me he thought I asked a pretty good question. I blew up at him and said, 'Well, you should have asked it right after me then!'"
Klein praised the efforts of the national television news networks in asking many of the hard questions, but more work, he feels, needs to be done:
"It doesn't matter if you are in print, film, television or Internet media. We have an obligation to ask hard questions of public officials and get answers for the people."
THE FILM
Klein's attempt to get answers for the people will be his finished film which follows events in both Kansas City and St. Louis. "We are finishing up the editing process, and hope to be done in the next week or so. We have some new footage dealing with the Kelo case that we want to work in, and there are always new developments."
Klein hopes to have the film accepted for the St. Louis International Film Festival, November 8-18, 2007. "That would mean the film's world premiere would be in St. Louis which would be great."
At present folks who are interested in the film can see two trailers (here and here) and a bit of the unedited raw interview footage (here).
It is the personal stories that seem to have the greatest impact upon Klein.
"They are taking property and livelihoods...years of memories. I know of an elderly couple that all they wanted was to die in the home where they raised their family. It was taken by a developer to build a hotel.
"When you are hit with this reality, it is overwhelming."
You can see and feel the impact in the short interview clip. In it a man tries to sort his thoughts while he attempts to also sort through the few things he can save before the wrecking ball demolishes what had been his property. The man is neither irrational or even fatalistic in his approach...there is not even a touch of "You can't fight city hall" about him. He looks like a man who knows an injustice is being committed against him, but he just cannot figure out how his country could allow it to happen. In its quiet dignity it speaks more loudly than any ranting or raving ever could.
Klein sees the concern about eminent domain abuse cutting across any well established party lines. "This issue isn't about being a Democrat, or a Republican, or a Socialist. Its about money."
However, the winners and losers are not defined ultimately by the amount of cash they each have at hand. Klein wants everyone who faces an eminent domain fight to know they can win.
"There are resources available to fight eminent domain. The Castle Coalition has materials available to help anyone fight back.
"You can beat big money by being smart with your money. You need to prepare effective strikes with full impact damage to your opponent.
"I've seen $1500 take on $2 million and $1500 win."
Still, it is the losses that strike the strongest emotional chords.
"There was a community in Kansas that was wiped out by eminent domain. All that was left was a street sign in front of a chain link fence. It struck me that this is what this film is about. I made that image the poster for the film."
Some links:
The Official Begging For Billionaire$ website:
The Castle Coalition.
UPDATE [by Rich Horton]: This version is somewhat changed in that I originally claimed, incorrectly, that the decision in Centene Plaza Redevelopment Corporation, v. Mint Properties, Inc., had come down. It has not. I also had a quote of Philip Klein's that referred to the oral arguments, not to a final decision. I regret the error.
UPDATE BY PAT: Stubborn Facts appreciates Rich's prompt correction of the error. That's the good thing about the blogosphere, mistakes get corrected quickly, thanks to the hordes of proof-readers that pore over our posts!
Economic Development and TIF
Excellent piece, Rich, and thanks for letting us cross-post it here.
One of the things I found most interesting was the discussion on Tax Increment Financing and other ways that states and cities compete with each other for "economic development."
It's one thing for states to compete with one another on the basis of the general tax structure, the quality of educational services, general business regulations, and other general policies which apply equally to everybody. But when states start directly "competing" in the marketplace with business-specific tax incentives, grants, and other special treatment, I think that's very bad for everybody.
My own state just lost out on a bid for a steel mill plant. The German company narrowed its choices down to us or Alabama, and in the end Alabama lucked out. Like many losing bidders in an auction, I think we probably got the better of the deal; Alabama offered them hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives and concessions and other promises. This is becoming more and more commonplace, and the end result will be bad for the nation as a whole and ultimately bad for the individual states and communities prostituting themselves like this.
I've seen states offering major incentives (read that as: cash taken from your pocket and placed into the pocket of corporate shareholders) to companies whose primary job was building warships for the U.S. Navy. What sense does it make for my (very poor) state to subsidize the construction of warships for the U.S. Navy?
I'm waiting to see just one state have the guts to put a moratorium on all such business-specific competition. Create a strong climate for business generally, and then tell them that if the businesses want to operate in a business-friendly state, without the need to hire all sorts of lobbyists to "make things happen," then by goodness they can come their and pay their fair share along with everybody else, and the state will continue to provide the quality infrastructure and educational systems they provide to all the other taxpayers.
state competition
Hmm. Good luck with that. As I sometimes like to say, don't hold your breath, we'd miss you. :-)
Seems to me that the state-by-state variance in policies is something large companies are getting ever better at exploiting. It's a race to the bottom. Can state A afford to have a less generous policy than state B if they really think they need those jobs? How do you draw the line between between a general "business-friendly" climate and business-specific bidding wars? And why bother, really? One way or the other, with states competing, there are going to be bidding wars. Is it really that much better if a given state doesn't make extra giveaways in specific cases, but rather engages in general giveaways as part of a "general pro-business climate?" The way it can often unfold is that a general law gets passed which was targeted to one big deal but can be applied to all new one. So then it goes on to function as an invitation for more businesses to line up at the trough.
Clearly, such competition can have a real downside. We know, for example, why so many businesses are "shell-incorporated" in Delaware, and such stuff can even veer past pretense to genuine fiction. How many delaware corporations deserve to be viewed as Delaware businesses?
Now it's also very fair to notice that the success of states with these general pro-business climates was driven by let's call it the blithe vampirism of states who once upon a time viewed big businesses as no more than infinite sources of additional state revenue. But that was then, and the problem we have now is where to go from here. Let me hasten to add that I have no answer to the problem that economic federalism presents outside of making sure your states leaders can do enough math to figure out when they are giving away the store, and just say no.
Ultimately, I think it may end up having to be up to voters in a grass roots effort to enact laws that place serious restrictions on subsidies to businesses. Stadia are just the tip of the iceberg.
But when states start
But when states start directly "competing" in the marketplace with business-specific tax incentives, grants, and other special treatment, I think that's very bad for everybody.
And when they don't, they lose tax base to states that do. Yes, it is bad for everybody. Even the "winners" generally get back less than they put in. In a very real sense (please note that specific "deals" are usually being made by municipalities, not states, though the states are major facilitators) what they're buying is reduced economic losses.
TIF's are just development financing tools with the revenue going to the government, and like any tool can be misused and abused. Without TIF's, eminent domain would still be abused where permitted by law, just using different mechanisms. Such as the more traditional tax abatements and industrial revenue bonds. For some things TIFs make very good sense indeed--and I've been involved in anti-blight redevelopment projects where TIFs worked wonderfully, and returned MORE than projected in boosted revenues. When that happens, the municipality keeps the extra money of course, just as they have to eat the shortfalls, and the businesses don't complain at all because TIF surpluses-over-projections mean that business is booming. It's important to note that TIFs do not in any way exempt businesses from paying their taxes--they just dedicate the increased tax revenues in the development area to paying off the governmental bond funding of the underlying infrastructure involved.
The problem with TIFs is the same problem found with almost all government financing plans based on "economic impact" projections--the projections of increased incremental revenue are generally founded more on optimism than on objective analysis, and even when based on real objective analysis the uncertainties related to future events are enormous.
The real problem is eminent domain abuse. Specifically the Kelo-style abuse, where the government uses eminent domain to reward the favored by shafting the original owners. Often some, even MOST, of the original property owners are all in favor of the seizures, as they can't collect oft-large buyouts from the developers unless the holdouts are forced to sell. So the municipality gets pressured from both directions, from developers and property owners alike.
The underlying infrastructure...
In a number of recent TIF cases here, Tully, the "underlying infrastructure" paid for with TIF-backed revenue bonds were privately-owned hotel or retail store buildings. Sure, the infrastructure remains, but in privately-owned hands that the state can do very little with. In those cases, it would be misleading to say that the businesses were paying the taxes (or, more accurately, passing on the taxes they collected from their customers). The tax passes briefly into the hands of the government, but then passes right back to the business in the form of the equity in the building. The sales tax payers are giving the business a rent-free building.
Thus, a mega-retailer recently was basically able to devote what its customers would otherwise have paid in taxes to instead build its own new building. The customers are still getting hit with the taxes, but they are going to help the bottom line of the company, not the general public. Local retailers, who were going to be hurt by the big box store anyway, are now getting a double whammy, because they have to forward their sales taxes to the government without having the government basically turn around and refund those taxes back to the business.
I understand the logic behind the TIF, and have seen it used appropriately in some rare instances, but it's got great potential for abuse. Even when used for good projects, there is grave risk when the government does an inadequate, overly-optimistic evaluation to project the enhanced sales taxes which are likely to flow from the project.
The states and municipalities have gotten suckered into competing in this game. The megacorporations must absolutely love it, and they certainly have no incentive to stop it. Here's where I'd like to see Congress step in and help prohibit or discourage some of this stuff. Unfortunately, the feds are benefiting too, when the states are subsidizing federal projects.
As I indicated both above
As I indicated both above and in the email I sent you before I saw your comment, TIF is not the culprit there. Eminent domain is. Sweetheart dealing and corruption involving local government is. (That they often make the sweetheart dealing "legal" in the structuring does not change that.) But TIF itself is just a redevelopment financing tool, and the devil is in how the crooked players can structure it. The basic TIF concept is not at fault. It's a sound and simple concept that gets abused when the local power structure sees ways to siphon off goodies on the public's dime.
Show me one single TIF project that you believe is an abuse that does NOT involve either eminent domain or corrupt back-room sweetheart dealing, or both, and you'll have found something I never have. Both of those things existed and thrived before TIF was invented. Every single abuse I've seen blamed on TIF was actually based on one or both of those two things--TIF just provided the basic financing. It's the same motivation that drives development everywhere, especially urban-fringe development and perpetual municipal expansion-annexation. Increase the value of taxable property, and tax revenues go up without any visible overt tax increase to PO the voters. Local government has almost NO incentive to prevent development rather than encourage it.
Developers know how hungry all government bodies are for more tax revenue and how averse they are to tax hikes, and they find ways to get the best deal for themselves by promising to help expand the tax base. This is why I have no pity for the poor developers. If sharks quit swimming, they suffocate. If developers quit developing, they starve. Doesn't make me cry--but local politicos are much carressed by developers. Guess why? ;-)
Eminent domain is not the only source of abuse...
Sometimes, the crookedness or just wrongness comes entirely in the TIF structure, and has absolutely nothing to do with eminent domain at all.
In a case here, as I said, TIF financing was used to construct a building to house a large, big box retailer. Once the bonds are paid off, ownership of the building will be transferred to the retailer. As far as I know, there are no secret back-room deals, and the voters of the area actually voted to approve the project.
But it's STILL a boondoggle. Taxes which the store would otherwise have collected from its customers and passed on to the government for use to operate the schools, repair the roads, etc., and instead are being diverted to give the retailer a free building, which of course gives it a substantial competitive advantage over other retailers who are in the same general area. The taxpayers are buying the mega-corporation a free building. I call that an abuse and a boondoggle, even though no eminent domain was used at all.
That's not to indict all uses of TIF, which of course I never did. Sometimes, it can be an appropriate vehicle. But it can be misused, and sometimes the misuse stems from the TIF itself. I'm no more decrying all uses of TIF than we are decrying all uses of eminent domain in this thread.
But but...
But it's STILL a boondoggle. Taxes which the store would otherwise have collected from its customers and passed on to the government for use to operate the schools, repair the roads, etc., and instead are being diverted to give the retailer a free building, which of course gives it a substantial competitive advantage over other retailers who are in the same general area. The taxpayers are buying the mega-corporation a free building. I call that an abuse and a boondoggle, even though no eminent domain was used at all.
But...(to make the econ impact argument that I would generally insist on being quantified--an argument I generally lose when having it with government, as they insist their made-up numbers are rock-solid) the pre-development taxes actually being collected on that property for general revenue purposes will stay the same because only the property-value increase increment goes to the building. Additionally, the property might not have been developed (into a higher tax valuation) at all without the TIF and thus taxes on it would have remained at the lower undeveloped level, and to the extent the store creates new commerce it will also generate throw-off tax revenues via employees and suppliers and services who would otherwise not have had the business to work for or sell to or service.
The taxpayers are buying the mega-corporation a free building.
Unless the TIF is structured substantially different than those I've seen, no, they are not. What they are doing is providing a pre-financed tax abatement to the store, which abatement proceeds are in turn directly financing the building. If the store fails to pay their taxes or otherwise bails out, the gov't gets the property back. They're locked in until the TIF is paid. Yet if that assistance had been provided as a classical property-tax abatement or via industrial revenue bonds, it would tend to stay abated and tax-free financed in perpetuity, and the store could sell however they wished to whomever they wished at any time. With a TIF the increased property taxes eventually become unrestricted revenue to the local taxing authority.
Is it giving the retailer an unfair advantage over their competition? Could be--I don't know the area specifics. How much of the competition got tax abatements and IRB's and such to open up shop? But since the taxpayers approved the TIF, they expect to receive benefits from it. Such as jobs, and lower prices from the competition being squeezed. Taxpayers don't usually get the chance to vote on abatements and IRB's, yet they're no less public-backed financing than TIFs, with the same economic justifications used, and with less direct means of recovering the public investment if things go south.
If you want to call the other means that private comapnies get subsidized financing via government boondoggles as well, no argument. Or at least a different one. But TIFs are just a financing tool, one that can be abused like any other financing tool.
We're talking apples and oranges...
The TIF that I'm talking about comes from sales taxes, not property taxes.
And yes, I consider it, in the context in which I made my original statement, a boondoggle and a terrible thing, on the whole, for governments to be doing. I understand the arguments (money that might not have been collected, yada yada yada), but the bottom line is that some favored few are getting public tax dollars which will directly line the pockets of the private business owners. That some of the local citizenry might get some small benefit at the same time is inadequate, in my opinion, to justify it in cases like the one I describe.
Why? Because the same argument can be made for each and every single business out there, and the government intervention seriously distorts the market, favoring some types of development over others. I would presume that most any successful business brings about more economic advantage to the area than it pays in taxes. If that's the primary justification for giving tax money to a private business, they'd all qualify. Why not just establish a sliding scale, create X jobs and get Y% off your sales and property taxes?
And I note, AGAIN, that I did not criticize all instances of TIF. My original comment said:
I went on to criticize: "But when states start directly "competing" in the marketplace with business-specific tax incentives, grants, and other special treatment, I think that's very bad for everybody."
So I think I was pretty clear about criticizing all means by which private companies get subsidized financing via government, not just TIF. Had you responded that TIF has appropriate uses, as well, I would have agreed. What I objected to was your assertion that the real problem is eminent domain abuse. I agree that eminent domain abuse is a serious problem, but I think these others are serious problems as well, which is the only point I was trying to make to begin with.
Er...
What I objected to was your assertion that the real problem is eminent domain abuse.
Not to be too picky, Pat, but Rich's post and all the contentious TIF uses I've seen locally were primarily dependent on property tax TIFs and the associated eminent domain abuses, not sales tax TIFs. I was speaking in that context of oranges in response to Rich's specific orange basket. In the context cited, the concerns with TIFs I addressed are the Kelo-type eminent domain abuses associated with recent TIF usages, particularly in the exact cases cited and referenced in Rich's post, no? I didn't bring in any apples, I was speaking of the orange basket originally presented.
I thought I said pretty clearly that TIFs have some very approriate uses, that the devil as always is in the details of any given project. It seemed to me that in Rich's post TIF's were being implicated by association as an evil-in-themselves alongside eminent domain abuses, when they're just a tool appearing in the redevelopment process, one that can be btoh appropriate and useful. I wished to clear that up. No matter what method of financing was used by Centrene, eminent domain abuse was the core problem, as it was in the KCMO redevelopment projects--[added] AND the Johnson County, KS racetrack.
I don't think we're disagreeing here. I think you've taken my comments on the particular cases Rich offered as comments on the more general case of local government subsidies of commerce that you were presenting. If that's because of my misreading or clicking the wrong comment reply button for chaining, my bad. Sales tax TIFs are a different analytical animal than property tax TIFs, though often both are used on the same projects.
In an ecological sense...
...you most often don't see the suspect-ED species without the suspect-TIF species also being present.
But...I've seen TIF used in incredibly foolish ventures in the St. Louis area without there being an ED component. TIF was used to help put a shopping center (I forget the name) on the absolute lonliest stretch of unusued industrial land on Manchester road. No one thought the place COULD succeed...and it didn't. Now, I've never seen a final audit for that project, but I get the feeling that the city taxpayers took more of a bath then the developer.
Very short-run planned
Very short-run planned obsolescence? But some well-connected and freely-donating contractors and developers got paid pretty well to build it, I'd wager. See clause #2, back-room dealing....
On the plus side....
...it does make for better looking derelict buildings.
We were speaking at cross-purposes...
Which is usually the case when we appear to disagree. I just said "TIF," because the cases I'm most familiar with are sales-tax TIFs. Your response was referring to property-tax TIFs. And your comment does make more sense to me if seen as a reply to the general post rather than my comment in particular.
Ah, well. If we could all communicate perfectly, life would be very dull indeed... ;-)
LOL
If we could all communicate perfectly, life would be very dull indeed... ;-)
I'm reminded of the idea that all wars are the result of poor communication. Naw, sometimes NOT understanding is safer. ;-)
Note to Centene...
I see from our logs that we've had a lot of visits from Centene to this post. I suspect one of them made the anonymous comment over at Rich's blog regarding the fact that the court opinion in their case had not actually come down.
Just wanted to say to you guys welcome, thanks (if it was you) for the correction (which we would have made earlier had you told us earlier), and you are more than welcome to provide a comment in response, if you'd like.
Were I Craig Ferguson...
...and people...alright, really drunk people, do tend to confuse us, I would say you were a "cheeky monkey".