If you had any doubts about the independence of the Star Tribune's editorial and reporting staff, Jim Boyd's pro-Target Store op-ed should clear them up for you.
Jim comes to the conclusion that the Target Store subsidy should accurately be figured at $30 million, not $100 million as some critics claim. (By the way, not naming who "some" critics are does weaken the contention a bit.) However, in June, Strib national economics correspondent Mike Meyers did a 5,000-word piece entitled "The PUBLIC price of PRIVATE development" that included some points Jim left out. 1. Jim backs out the entire $17 million parking ramp subsidy because he said the city had previous plans to put a parking ramp in the area. However, Mike reported that the city extended subsidies to a parking garage with half the spaces guaranteed for a single corporation (Target) and for the office tower - both against city policy. My guess is that we didn't fill the pre-existing parking need - we built the spaces for the new need, Target. Thus, I wouldn't "back out" all $17 million for the ramp, as Jim does. 2. Jim says Target received no subsidy because it will still pay the same property taxes as any similar-valued property. (TIF refunds the incremental additional property taxes paid by a developer into buying the land, etc.) But Mike points out that the city, not the corporation, assumes the risk if property taxes don't pay off the bonds. "Ryan originally agreed to a $20 million ``pay-as-you-go'' bond that would have made it responsible for making up part of any shortfall in the project's property taxes. Last year, the city paid off that bond as part of a refinancing plan to reduce interest costs. The new general obligation notes carry a lower rate but also require that taxpayers, not Ryan, bear the entire risk of property tax shortfalls on the block." That risk take-over is a big potential subsidy dangling out there. 3. Jim says that because Target paid only what it would for a suburban store means the corporation is not subsidized. But Mike notes that Target winds up with an asset on prime Downtown land. 4. Mike reported that in 1999, the City Council granted a zoning variance that freed Ryan (the developer) from building its own parking for the office tower. "That saved Ryan about $17 million in construction and land costs, and at least $820,000 in annual property taxes, based on the city's commercial property tax rate. Ryan said the public parking garage wasn't a subsidy for the office tower, despite the fact that without it Ryan would have had to try to attract tenants with no on-site parking, something no developer has tried in downtown Minneapolis since 1983." Jim left this out. 5. Even Jim's $62 million baseline figure is short. Mike reported, "Minneapolis and Hennepin County must under state law pay an amount equivalent to the property taxes from the new buildings into a state revenue-sharing pool, even though that tax money won't start flowing into their general funds for 12 years. On the 900 block that adds up to $2.7 million in today's dollars _ an expense for city and county not included in the official $62 million public cost of the Target site." A good newspaper is a forum for diverse opinions and information. Whatever you think of Jim's and Mike's pieces, on this issue they have provided a lot for readers to analyze. David Brauer King Field - Ward 10 _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
