Indy Tax Dollars

Well, maybe

We’d have suggested the addition of one word to the headline on the editorial article in this week’s Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ).  It read, "Time to show Pacers some love."

The writer re-hashes all the old claims about how much the team means to the city economically, while completely failing to mention the hundreds of millions of tax dollars already tossed into this pit.  Nor does he mention study after study indicating that a professional sports franchise mostly moves money around in the city without significantly expanding the total amount of economic activity.  Without the team, the money will still be spent.

One argument used to support the idea that we should "love" the Pacers is that they did make the playoffs this year. The standard format for the system is that more than half the teams in the league do always make that cut.  Why do they bother to play the full season?  Is a season-long record of more losses than wins by highly paid professional athletes really something of which to be proud?  This actually demands our "love" and thanks?

The playoff system for the NBA is a farcical name for a glaringly obvious way to extend the season and extract a few more dollars from the fans.  Considering the alleged financial situation of the Pacers, it would seem the extension of the season would only add to the monetary losses being forced upon the team.  That hardly seems fair to the team owners to whom it is said the city owes so much for keeping the team here.

We balk at the word "love" and the idea of thankfulness.  We’ll be happy to show the Pacers some respect when they take part in the local economy under the same rules as other private, profit-making entertainment businesses in the city.  That is, without public subsidy, supplying and maintaining their own necessary real estate and improvements, paying property taxes thereon - directly or through a standard lease arrangement - and otherwise receiving the same municipal services available to a bowling alley, movie theater, golf driving range or any other commercial offering of amusement or diversion..

Oh, yes.  The additional word we would insert?  We think it would be appropriate to put the word "tough" just before "love" in that headline!

Reporters and questions

This may be somewhat off on a tangent but we thought it worth at least a comment.

A columnist in yesterday’s morning paper applauds a TV reporter in reference to the mayor "hiding" from questions: "(the reporter)...did exactly what good reporters do when politicians play hide-and-seek.  She tracked Ballard down...to pose her questions." (Our emphasis.)

Regular readers of this blog know that we frequently ask questions. Immediately after making a post we email the governor, mayor, our state senator and representative, and our City-County councilman (copies to all council members), informing them of the new post. 

We also email some 30-40 members of the media, print and electronic, including two editors.  We have no way to pursue direct contact with public officials, but we have hoped it is clear that any member of the media is free to use any or all of our questions at his/her discretion.

An email request for information from the our councilman resulted in a "I’ll look into that."  That was months ago and apparently he is still looking.  A follow-up snail-mail to the same gentleman did result in a response.  Other public officials simply don’t respond, even to snail-mail follow-up.   

One interesting reply from a reporter on this paper was, "That’s a good question, Fred.  You should have been a reporter."  What is even more interesting is the fact that he failed to use (or to report on) the question himself.

Some time ago the editor solicited questions or comments on subjects which readers thought should be covered.  We submitted a series of half dozen questions by way of our blog.  One reporter emailed he was impressed and would take the list to a meeting within a couple of days.  We never heard from him again.  And he has never asked, or at least written about, any of the questions we submitted.

All of this only leads to the subject which came to our mind when reading this column.  If it is the mark of a good reporter, how come someone from the electronic media was the only one pursuing the mayor?

Question.  Does biased management trump good reporting?

What's really there?

It’s a question coming to mind as a result of an item in the current issue of the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ).  A multi-page presentation about the movers and shakers in local high finance includes reference to the "Executive Director and General Counsel of the Indianapolis Local Public Improvement Bond bank."

We hasten to point out that the following thoughts are not - we repeat, NOT - directed toward the gentleman himself.  Just his employment.

We have, several times, on this website raised the question about just how much debt this city has hanging over it.  There are two sentences in this article which struck a nerve.

"The Indianapolis Bond Bank is the debt-issuing and capital-financing arm of the city of Indianapolis and all municipal corporations.  In his position, Kintner oversees and manages a $5 billion debt portfolio." (Our emphasis.)

We confess to being less than completely literate in financial jargon.  We can’t remember hearing the term "debt portfolio" in discussions of city finances.  We had to wonder whether these are the same dollars which, for decades, have been described as "investments" in "economic development" which were going to make this a world class city. A rich world class city!  (Being as ignorant as we are, we’ve never considered our comparatively minuscule "investment" portfolio as debt.)

Actually, this dollar figure is rather embarrassing to us.  Makes us feel pretty chintzy when raising a question about a lousy $6 million of local money for the Georgia Street boondoggle.  But we’ll go ahead with our points anyway.

What is included in a "debt portfolio?"  Does this include only bonds issued by the city or its "municipal corporation" segments?  What about long term contracts?  Is the cost of the football field included?  The state is technically owner of the original debt, but is being paid by a contract with the city.

Why do we have complex set-ups like the Marion County Convention and Recreational Facilities Authority?  The Authority’s annual report of 2005 includes this statement: "The Authority is organized and operated to finance, acquire, construct and lease capital improvements (principally by means of lease arrangements, whereby the Authority operates as the lessor and other political units of the city operate as the lessee, paying rent to the authority for their use.)"  Does this arrangement appear in a "debt portfolio?"

What we have is simply a means of by-passing constitutional debt limits by setting up multiple agencies having separate limits but with the same taxpayers being the source of revenues for all of them.  We would disagree with the courts which have approved such transparent financial shenanigans over the years.

One more question.  Why is the city in the banking business to begin with?  As we have previously noted, Indianapolis was not even in the original legislation setting up bond banks. These were designed to allow small units of government to couple small bond issues into a larger aggregate while seeking a better interest rate.

As it has worked out, we know how it is now being used.  A recent news article pointed out that, while the TIF fund revenues being held by the Bond Bank are outpacing payment needs, no additional payments are being made.  The bank is sitting on about $100 million, waiting for the next anointed developer - like the folks at No-So - to come along for their turn at this slush fund.

No doubt we’ll find many very important Super Bowl projects in coming months for which funds will somehow magically appear - out of the downtown smoke-and-mirrors.