TIF districts not only suck away for 25-50 years future increases for the city which negotiated them, but for the other taxing districts that did not, slicing revenues from the county, the school district and any special taxing districts relying on property taxes and their increases to keep up with increasing demands.
A TIF district would be one of the worst ways to funnel public dollars into a private professional sports facility, which should not be done in any case. Furthermore, if proponents and opponents alike would do their research - as with Andrew Zimbalist and others publishing data on publicly funded stadia - the economic development spin-offs from stadiums/stadia are essentially nil, especially in the long run. People really do not want to live in the shadow of a sports stadium. Why should they? The chaos surrounding professional sports fan behavior sickens the society, but worse, ruins surrounding properties rendering them valueless. Check out what has happened to the eight block radius around both the Hump and the Target Center. Wastelands. Once-thriving 1st Avenue, 3rd, 4th 5th and 6th Streets are disasters and the Warehouse district is taking a major hit from Target Center's impact on the cozy arts and performance mecca that once defined the entire community. Stadiums are never a public asset, only a private one - they're without a true public purpose and their impact on a huge area of every city core where they've been erected has been ghetto-creation, little more. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul -------- > From: "David Brauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 08:14:55 -0500 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [Mpls] Stadum; > > Tim Bonham writes, re: the $10 million stadium cap: > >> They just don't ever go before the City Council for funding. Instead they >> run it thru MCDA, which they claim is not restricted by this voter-passed >> Charter Amendment spending limit on the City Council. To argue that MCDA >> is just the City Council in another name (same 13 people on the board), > you >> will have to have the money and lawyers to fight the city in court. > > The MCDA no longer exists. It's Community Planning and Economic Development > (never know if that's "Department of CPED" or "CPED Department, or CPEDD - > oh well), and it's part of the city now. No independence claimed, or given. > > Since Hennepin County has to be involved for anything to go forward, I > expect they'll be the lead "banker." It's possible the city could > simultaneously change existing non-stadium burden-sharing agreements with > the County as one way around the referendum requirement. > > Another way, floated in the past, is to create a TIF district that would > suck in new property taxes from any new housing developed in the Rapid Park > trench. Wouldn't tap current tax base, but would keep the city from enjoying > the new property taxes from the housing development for decades. It's quite > a stretch to think a booming area could meet a TIF "blight test," but it has > happened before. > > Also, there's always the possible that they might just have a referendum! > > David Brauer > Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
