Indy Tax Dollars

Million dollar susites

That’s the basic subject matter of the article in this morning’s paper concerning the further pampering of our local football "heroes."  For a mere $2 million - at the "request" of the team - the CIB is adding two more suites for additional revenues.  That’s additional revenue for the team.  Of course!

This travesty, in itself, has already been (almost) covered by the media.  But one sentence in this article raised some questions.  "CIB leaders said the project would keep the stadium at a ‘top-notch level’ to attract events besides Colts games."

We got curious and went to the internet to check on the "Upcoming Events / Lucas Oil Stadium" website.  Just what events are taking place in the football palace?  It turned out to be pretty interesting.

As of today’s date, through May 3, 2014, the stadium will be in use 33 days.  That’s out of ten and one half months.  Of those 33 days, 11 will be Colts football activities and 2 more will be other football games.  That’s 13 out of 33.

Of the 20 remaining days, two 3-day events will be the only usage for more than one day.  Of the 14 days left, at least 8 events are fairly readily identified from attendance estimates as capable of being held in any of the leading downtown hotels.

We are guessing that most taxpayers are probably unaware that the stadium structure contains a number of meeting rooms other than the arena itself. Each of these 8 events shows an estimated attendance of 400 or less.

How’d you like to be paying the bill for a wedding reception for 65,000 people?  Well, don’t worry.  While being listed as an "Upcoming Event" for the stadium, attendance will only be 200.  Even luckier is the guy responsible for the "retreat" listed as an "upcoming event" for the stadium.  Total estimated attendance - 6.  (No, we have not doctored or mis-quoted the figure.)

We’ve been hassled a little for calling the stadium just a football field.  We tend to think the numbers cited above justify our terminology.  How many suites will be in use for the rehearsal dinners, wedding receptions, corporate gatherings, and retreats which seem to make up a significant part of the list of days in use by "Upcoming Events / Lucas Oil Stadium?"

We just have to ask one more question.  At the time of construction, it was estimated that the addition of a movable roof, at the demand of the Colts, was costing something between $50 and $70 million.

Does anyone know how many times the roof has been opened in these first five years?  And for which events?  We think we remember one concert where the reporter covering it wrote that it sounded better from outside with his early departure.  And football fans were terribly uncomfortable - and complaining - when it was opened on a sunny afternoon.  Too hot!

What black magic does the franchise owner have that turns political "leaders" to fiscal "jelly fish" when he "requests" another $2 million - and gets them - while tragically underfunded municipal public safety operations are fighting soaring crime rates against the taxpaying public?

Surely there is an end somewhere.  Isn't there?  Please??

 

Something missing

An interesting story about traffic flow showed up on the front page of the morning paper today.  It seems a study has turned up recommending the placement of nine roundabouts along Ind. 37 between Noblesville and Fishers.

One motorist is quoted as saying the current congestion is like driving in a five mile long school zone.  We have to admit that’s pretty bad.

The estimated cost of the program comes out at $348 million, of which 80 percent would be some of that free federal stuff.  That would hang about $70 million on the locals.  The only reference we could find on this was "...funding would have to be secured...."

There is a seeming afterthought reference in the next to last paragraph of the story.  We’re told, basically, that the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (IMPO) knows about the proposal but has nothing official to do with it.  A spokesman for the IMPO says, "Transportation funds, including planning funds, are tight all over."

We don’t know what relationship the IMPO has, if any, with the organizations advocating the widely publicized "mass transit" project.  We’ll offer a couple of questions.

Are these people talking to each other?  The story refers to traffic flow four or five times.  The billion dollar plus mass transit deal still includes either a rail line or express bus service from Noblesville to downtown Indianapolis.

Has anyone asked whether simultaneous operation of "free flowing" traffic through nine roundabouts just might affect ridership on public transit?  Or whether rapid public transit might preclude the need for an additional multimillion expenditure on "traffic flow?"  It’s the same old question of the feasibility of very expensive transportation facilities parallel, and geographically adjacent, to each other.

Equally important is consideration of the ability of local politicians to divert tax monies to their own pet projects.  Just where would the billion dollar revenues from a new "transit tax" wind up?  Do roundabouts get merged into mass transit suggestions - including funding?

We find it curious that, in an article as detailed as this one, we could find no reference to a program as widely hyped as mass transit has been.  We’re talking about two projects covering the same ground with a combined cost estimated at more than half a billion dollars for the same geographic area.

Are these really separate projects?  Who will decide what the relationship is, if any?  Who will decide the source, and proper allocation, concerning local funding?

There is a whole lot of important information owed the taxpayers.  Until it turns up, we would recommend slow motion on solutions for easing congestion.  Actually, more like a full stop, roundabouts or not!

Priorities - again

The front page headline on this morning’s paper reads "IMPD REACHES OUT FOR HELP."  The sub-head tells us, "Police ask social service agencies for assistance."

What follows is a lengthy article on steps the police department is taking to involve many private and other public agencies to help manage "...officer shortages, a  surge in homicides and unrelenting youth violence."  

 We congratulate the leadership of the department on its efforts to use any and all possibilities to facilitate the necessary programs with which to protect the citizens.

But we found some wording in the article which gives us pause as to what the political leadership of this city is really serious about.

"And they (IMPD) are re-establishing what could become the control tower for all the partnerships: an Indianapolis Public Safety Foundation.  The foundation will raise money to pay for programs or equipment not covered by Public Safety’s stagnant $203 million operating budget." (Our emphasis.)

Once again, the fiscal policies of the so-called leadership of this city are shown to be lacking in even common sense.  We continue to give multi-million dollar, tax provided subsidies to professional sports.  We continue to expand Tax Increment Financing districts which drain property tax revenues from legitimate and necessary support of public safety functions.  And we continue to have municipal ("stagnant?") budget problems which are exacerbated by these very same policies.

Well, at least the current article does explain the mayor’s campaign against downtown panhandling.  He apparently wants to clear the way for citizen volunteers who will occupy those corners, carrying plastic buckets and begging for alms to relieve the concerns caused by "officer shortages, a surge in homicides and unrelenting youth violence."

Plan ahead!  Good thinking, Mayor!!

 

 

Which are you?

If you are a developer or a professional sports franchise owner, grab a large container and head for City Hall.  There is about to be another deluge of public dollars for you.  If you are an individual taxpayer, grab your wallet because the deluge is going to come out of that container!

Three separate items in this morning’s paper tell us the story.  We won’t go into great detail.

The top headline in the second section of the paper says "MASS AVE. DEAL NEAR."  This one involves moving Red Cross headquarters and various fire department properties.  There is reference to city acquisition of the Red Cross site with no financial information disclosed.

The next to last paragraph of the article reads as follows: "The city is aiding the project by essentially giving the land to the developers and moving the IFD buildings.  A new fire station is expected to cost the city $10 million to $11 million.  (Our emphasis.)

The second item refers to a proposed development in Broad Ripple.  It will have retail space, 88 apartments and 400 parking spaces.  (Presumably there will be an express bus stop nearby so that people can park their cars and ride the wildly popular proposed mass transit.)

Again, we quote the next to last paragraph.  "They plan to ask the city for money from a local tax-increment financing district to help pay for improvements at the site."  (Our emphasis.)  We’re not sure what the use of the word "local" means here.  The newly established TIF district gives the appearance of weird gerrymandering, extending from near downtown to Broad Ripple with much of its width seeming to be a maximum of 5-6 blocks.

The third item is a column, warning us that the local basketball franchise will be in the taxpayers’ pockets for years to come.  The author claims that the team had "leverage" when they were losing and that the "leverage" is even greater now that they are winning.

We admire the imaginative use of the word "leverage."  It’s like saying we have "leverage" on the author because we have a picture of him coming out of a bank with a heavy briefcase - at two o’clock in the morning!  A more accurate definition would call it extortion.

There is also a list of seven items which the city would "lose" if the team were to leave town. We thought the sixth was the most interesting. "It would lose the main tenant in a building that is still 15 years from being paid off."

When the tenant is not paying one thin dime toward the debt, we think it is at least in bad taste even to mention that part of the equation.  We find it difficult to mourn the loss of a tenant which takes all revenues from the building and, for all practical purposes, is actually being paid for using the building.

We guess it is unnecessary to point out that none of the three items makes any reference to, or asks questions about, this continuing policy of corporate welfare in the face of severe municipal budgetary problems.

It’s Friday o’clock in Wonderland, and all’s well!

 

A depressing Saturday

The first of three items to hit the eye was the front page headline on the IBJ reading, "Development may spawn TIF tug of war."  Seems a new proposal for action a block or two north of the newly completed parking garage in Broad Ripple is under consideration for taxpayer subsidy.

The first deputy Santa Claus downtown, also known as the "deputy mayor for economic development," tells us "...it would be a very challenging site to develop without TIF dollars."

We have questions.  The city just donated 46% of the cost of building the parking garage - said garage needed because of the crowded, extraordinary amount of economic activity in the area.  Why were municipal tax dollars ever involved to begin with?

What ever happened to the concept of "risk and reward?"  Does it never occur to anyone that a project which is risky should be financed by those who will reap the reward?  How have we arrived at the point that any Tom, Dick or Harry (or politically connected developer) who wants to put one brick atop another feels entitled to expect taxpayers to furnish the mortar between them?  

The article goes on at length about other possible uses of TIF funds.  There is, unfortunately, no mention of problems aggravated by lack of funds for Broad Ripple High School, for instance, while the TIF operation cannibalizes all new property tax revenues in the area.

The second item catching our eye was the editorial in the same edition of the IBJ - this concerning the mass transit boondoggle.  The author recommends that proponents of the proposal continue to "...respectfully and patiently reiterate what they’ve touted all along:...."

He then gives us eight "bullet points" of suggestions most of which are the obvious repetitions.  But it was the seventh such suggestion which really caught our attention.  It reads, "Locals can be trusted to handle transit details."  (Our emphasis.)

While watching the city administration wasting millions of dollars - dollars originally intended for infrastructure rehabilitation - on a pie-in-the-sky dream of making the city an internationally famous center for the game of cricket, it makes one wonder whether the editorial was written as a joke.

Of course, the editorial writer may not consider the properly prioritized handling of a billion plus dollars, the estimated cost of the transit project, a very important "detail."

Based on historic precedent, we think it likely that the entire billion might be spent on a high speed, elevated train - from Stadium to Palladium - with another tax increase enacted upon completion to finance operations!

OK.  So that’s a little over the top.  But not much more than leaning on "local handling" of details as has been the case for many years in this city.  In fact it occurs to us that expansion of the project to a multi-county area may be a forethought about future expansions when Marion County finally becomes one large, consolidated TIF district.

The third item was the announcement that Governor Pence actually approved the "Ballard power grab" legislation passed by the legislature.

We are extremely disappointed in the governor.  This appears to be a "cave in" to the Indianapolis Republican power base, the members of which are more than likely totally opposed to the governmental philosophy of Pence.  Considering this to be a party line division is, in our opinion, a huge mistake.

The statement issued by Pence reads as though it could have been written in Ballard’s office.  With reference to the first two items discussed above, one sentence of that statement really caught our eye.

He says he is signing the legislation because, "...it serves the public interest..." by granting the mayor "...the authority to manage the city’s finances in a manner that protects the taxpayer...."  (Our emphasis.)

Governor, you are not paying attention.  Building a cricket pitch instead of repairing crumbling sidewalks and streets does not protect the taxpayer.  Using the TIF process to divert property tax funds from legitimate city functions for the benefit of private developers does not protect the taxpayer.  Spending millions of federal transportation dollars to turn Georgia Street into some kind of seldom used playground while insisting on new local taxes for actual transit purposes does not protect the taxpayer.

All of these things, plus direct subsidy of professional sports franchises, are going on while city budget makers struggle to eliminate future deficits.

The phrase "protect the taxpayer" has not existed at city hall for decades.  We see absolutely no reason to suppose this new law has any chance to reinstate it.

Truly a depressing Saturday!