We used to have a Pat on the Back Day and I think we should revive it soon
(although there is now so much list traffic that many members don't like
anything that artificially ups the message count). Anyway, regardless of
whether I agree with her positions, I think Carol Becker deserves a huge pat
on the back for participating in this forum.
Why Carol particularly? Carol does the thankless job of defending city
positions - a job that, frankly, the elected politicians who approve those
policies should be doing! (I must also note the increased participation of
the MCDA, for which I thank agency list-members, including Bob Cooper.) As I
have told many members off-list, I like Minneapolis-Issues best when it is a
multi-sided conversation - and frankly, without Carol, it would often be
just city critics talking to each other. So thanks Carol!
Now on to trash her arguments (kidding!!!)
As other members have noted, criticizing the Mother of All TIF Excesses is
not to throw TIF out with the bathwater. Mike Meyers' story made it pretty
clear that city procedures were exceeded or ignored when it came to the
Target Store. (It's shocking - shocking - that there was never a
straightforward cost-benefit analysis.) I think you can attract business
through TIF, but the program was designed to improve blighted property - not
replace a stately building whose owners had just invested in it!! I'm as
liberal as the next guy, but this kind of condemnation power is scary...
Gov. Ventura has made a big point of stressing how his property tax reform
(which I believe is deform) increases local accountability. Well, the
problem is cities face big cuts in the only way they can raise money -
property taxes. This increases the odds that a complicated property tax tool
like TIF will be abused. . The problem with being limited to property taxes
as a way to develop is that it gives cities unfortunate extra incentive to
tear down buildings like Physicians and Surgeons in favor of a Target Store.
Plus, if cities choose to raise money through property taxes in the future,
those taxes will be much less progressive than they used to be. If we're
increasing local accountability, I wish cities received more and better
tools in their arsenal. (I'm not necessarily arguing for more spending, just
talking about how whatever level of local taxation you feel is needed gets
achieved.) Unfortunately, even those tools mean creating huge
city-versus-city competitive problems. A city income tax, for example, would
be much more progressive, but would be high-profile and bad publicity. I
don't know if the equivalent of a "special service district" could be done
using income taxes - y'know, high-buck downtown development luring
high-income folks is funded by a small city income tax surcharge on over a
certain income level. Oh well - all probably unworkable anyway.
Last thing on this: I was really interested in the debate in St. Paul over
whether to TIF-subsidize a Home Depot (what the city economic development
folks want) versus building mixed-income housing (what the neighborhood
groups want). The city's economic development chief was willing to spend
$3-5 million in TIF on Home Depot, but pronounced housing unworkable. Is
that because TIF rules favor commercial development - which has a higher
property tax rate -- or does state TIF regulation prohibit residential TIF
districts?
This relates directly to Minneapolis, which has plenty of commercial and not
enough housing. If we preserve TIF, an appropriate Year 2001 use is to build
& preserve housing, not beef up already oversupplied retail. In the same
vein as build-Target-at-City-Center, I'd love to see a
"vacant-lot-TIF-district," in which the city's stubbornly vacant lots are
yoked together and their future higher property taxes (the increment)
refunded to produce new housing there. This would truly redevelop true
blight - the appropriate use of TIF.
I know from having talked to some experts that state law precludes
non-contiguous TIF districts (a response to some commercial zone abuses in
the '80s and '90s). But laws can be changed or exemptions received for a
good experiment. My bigger question is about financial fundamentals: could
something like Vacant Lot TIF work? Would there be high enough "increment"
to really spur development?
I don't want to see TIF eliminated. I just think we need to "target" it more
appropriately.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Carol Becker
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 8:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mpls] TIF & Strib
I was pretty disappointed in the Strib's TIF articles. TIF is easy to shoot
at. You just yell "corporate subsidies" "corporate subsidies" and tell
people how evil it is that government gave businesses money.
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
