Indy Tax Dollars

Not exactly Indy...

...but close enough, considering the subject matter.

Apparently our northern neighbor has been paying attention to the fiscal shenanigans of our politicians.  The issue of the IBJ which hit our mailbox today details for us how the mayor of Carmel is using that city’s TIF money as a slush fund.

The difference is that he seems to be doing it quite openly.  The city will subsidize the performing arts center to the tune of $5.5 million.  We’re told "...the money will come from a private entity that’s supported by tax-increment financing revenue, rather than the city’s general fund."  (Our emphasis.)

 The plan calls for the redevelopment commission to give "extra TIF money" to a separate organization, the above referenced "private entity" which was "...established to carry out various redevelopment projects."  This "private entity" is further identified as acting "...like an arm of the city’s redevelopment commission, and will "make grants to the performing arts center."  (Our emphasis.)

We have a little trouble with the idea that subsidy of operating cost for a multi-million dollar theater complex falls into any category of "redevelopment projects."  But then, what do we know?  The towering new, downtown Marriott hotel drew such funds because the area surrounded by the Eiteljorg Museum, the state office building, the Indianapolis zoo and a brand new baseball park was so ramshackle and seedy that it needed "redevelopment."

The "extra TIF money" is apparently a kind of duplication of our local operation where, instead of using the funds as provided my law, they are hoarded in the Bond Bank until an anointed project calls for their release.  (A member of the Carmel city council thinks this move is "absolutely logical."  Just like our City-County Council!)

This creative accounting, which permits the most imaginative interpretation of the law, has apparently met the approval of the judicial system.  Is the codification of The Night Before Christmas next?  We could go a little farther north of Carmel and redevelop the antique North Pole workshop - financed with TIF funds, naturally.

Right - and wrong

The new issue of the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ) brings us an op-ed piece by an IUPUI law professor. It is headlined,  "In Indy, it’s still the economy, stupid." The basic theme of the essay - the mayoral race - becomes the need for government job creation.  One would hope that a person in her position would know better.

But rather than discuss "government job creation" our purpose here is to address, again, the complete disconnect between types of government expenditures and any logical set of priorities.

The professor refers to "...state-imposed tax caps that are starving units of local government...," which is why, presumably, we don’t have amenities which attract business like "...well-tended parks, efficient government agencies and convenient public transportation."

When discussing the tax base and starving government, it never occurs to the professor to mention city economic policies and public-private partnerships which have decimated the property tax base rather than increasing revenues to the city.

We don’t have the "amenities" she mentions, despite having made huge "investments" downtown - most of which were tax dollars - in recent decades.  The reason is that most of  the real estate and improvements involved have become publicly owned, creating a double whammy.  Public money is spent to replace tax paying property with that which is not on the tax rolls at all - but much of which is still being used by for-profit businesses.

The Mile Square is the center of the city - an area ten blocks square bounded by North, East, South and West streets.  The south half of that area of 50 blocks, some of the most valuable land in the state, now has nearly 20% of the real estate off the tax rolls entirely, exclusive of historical exemptions such as schools, churches and government occupied property.

While including the extortion by professional sports in this tax immunity, this fails to take into account the voluntary "deals" the city has made with favored developers involving abatements, loans, grants and abuse of the system known as Tax Increment Financing (TIF), virtually all of which have further shrunk property tax revenues for ordinary and usual municipal functions.

The disconnect between priorities is amazing.  One wonders, for instance, whether the professor made any effort to try to get the $33 million "bonus" for the basketball team dedicated instead to "well tended parks" or "convenient public transportation."

We’d agree that the word "stupid" probably does apply locally.  The city has spent - "invested" - a helluva lot of taxpayer dollars in recent years, only to find ourselves still wondering how we’re going to make ends meet!   Isn’t an "investment", by definition, supposed to supply an affirmative return? 

It's not "the economy, stupid."  It's the "stupid approach to economics."  Or, more accurately, it's the political approach to economics. 

 

 

It just keeps coming

This morning’s headline (page C2 - sports) reads, "Ballard, other mayors urge end to NBA lockout." They’re sending a letter to the NBA owners and players asking for an end to the lockout "...to avoid economic problems in the cities."

Mr. Mayor, you apparently have not noticed that the NBA itself is an economic problem for cities where the political leadership is prone to accept all forms of professional sports extortion.  Like Indianapolis, for instance.

And the paper says, "...the NBA lockout is also affecting the livelihood of restaurant owners, wait staff, parking attendants...and we believe their voices should be heard as well."

Well, we have a question for you Mr. Mayor - you and your fellow Santa Clauses.  When are you going to start thinking about your taxpaying citizens?  These are the people who, by their direct subsidy of the millionaires of the NBA - owners and players alike - are also indirectly subsidizing the "others in our cities" who are hurt by the lockout.

We feel for those folks who actually work for their meager pay, as opposed to the guys who get paid millions for playing a few games a year.  But it is the deals made by greedy politicians who put them in the position of having to depend on those millionaire whims.  And if those high rollers don’t give a damn about the other folks mayor, it certainly is your job to do so.

We’re still going to give the local bandits another ten million tax dollars, even if they never lace up their shoes for a single game this season.  This is most certainly NOT what we mean by doing your job!

Meanwhile, on page A12 of the same morning paper, the editorial is headed,"Libraries, buses get a little help. " The "help" will leave IndyGo having to appeal to the state legislature for another $1.8 million in property tax revenues.  And we’re told the libraries will get an additional $150,000 out of a pot of $250,000,000.  Boy!  Talk about an early Christmas!!  Sure hope they don’t spend it all in one place!!!

A recent headline in the paper referred to the mayoral candidates facing a "tight budget" year.  Has anyone asked the candidates how they view this NBA fiasco of logic and economics?  Our hope would have been to see a headline in this morning’s paper reading, "Ballard, other mayors urge end to NBA."

Occupy Georgia Street folks, where are you?

We wonder...

...where the local Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters are.  When will it occur to them that, other than the numbers of dollars involved, a taxpayer bailout of millionaire sports franchise owners is pretty much the same as bailing out a Wall Street bank or mortgage company which is about to collapse.

We were told recently that more than half the members of the NBA are losing money.  We already know the sad, sad local story of the Pacers.  If a particular type of business is failing so widely, is there any logic at all in continuing to ask taxpayers to prop it up?  If a chain of bowling alleys is losing money are taxpayers legitimately in hock to keep the pins falling?  Why not give a failing business a decent burial?

Yesterday morning’s paper tells us the woeful story of the suffering of other businesses if the basketball season is lost.  (Surely the center of the city would disintegrate if the NBA actually left town.  How many times have we heard that?)

The article refers to a season of 82 scheduled games.  We presume that means half the games would be home games.  Might that be observed rather as an opportunity for 41 more dates allowing other use of the building?  Why do basketball supporters (particularly the politicians who control the monetary handouts) assume that, without a team, the fieldhouse would stand empty like a movie house without a screen?

Maybe it is time to re-work the golden contract the city has made.  We’re told about the great loss of revenues without the team.  Actually, municipal Indianapolis is the loser simply by having the team here because of the "negotiating skills" of those representing the city.

One answer would be to put fieldhouse promotion in the hands of the convention bureau for a hard hitting sales program enticing other events - especially for those 41 dates.  Surely, all non-basketball revenues ought to go to the city under "no-game" circumstances.

Is it time for some "Occupy Georgia Street" activity?

Did we speak too soon?

Our last post indicated our relief that the morning paper had finally printed something which seemed to support what we have been saying about the various proposals on public transportation.

Alas, this morning’s paper carries two lengthy stories promoting the use of an "express" bus service along the "Palladium to stadium" route.

We’re treated to the information that the service was started with a $1 million dollar federal grant.  Now that the the price of gas has gone down, the grant has run out and the price of the ride has gone up, ridership has fallen off  (18 people on a bus with a capacity of 50+ on the author's test ride) to the point that another $220,000 federal dollars are now being used to cajole folks into abandoning their cars.

The author found the trip to be a real "way to go."  (He especially found the view of sunrise through the big bus window "breathtaking.")

But he also admitted that if your Indianapolis destination is more than very few blocks from the Circle, you are destined to join the unfortunates who will still be trying to get to work on poor old IndyGo.

We, of course, still remember the $10 million federal "transportation" money that’s being blown on actually reducing street capacity downtown.  Remember Georgia Street?

We’re still opposed to raising taxes and putting more than $2 billion in the hands of people who have such priorities.  We think it likely they would first set up rapid transit to/from the suburbs, then initiate multiple "light rail" lines, finally set up new routes for IndyGo, and then run out of money before they could buy new buses and hire their drivers!

Joe the plumber still couldn’t get to work in Lawrence from Irvington, but the sunrise over Fishers would still be a killer.

A friendly voice

At last!  Someone who apparently agrees with our position in the public transportation discussion.  An opinion column in the morning paper a couple of days ago by a gentleman identified as senior vice-president of an architect-engineering firm mirrors what we have proposed for some time.

One sentence in the column provides the essence of the entire predicament.  The author says, "In terms of time and funding, IndyGo and its riders have to accept what’s left over after other matters are addressed."  We would like to have been able to state the problem as succinctly as he has.

The gentleman has laid out the problem very directly.  The primary and most important part of the public transit equation is getting residents of the city of Indianapolis who must - or given a reasonable choice, would - travel by bus in everyday cross-town travels.

In a 16-inch column, the words "rapid transit" and "light rail" appear only once.  We interpret this to mean that the author agrees with our position that establishment of iron-clad priorities is essential before we start increasing the tax load and/or writing checks from an estimated fund of $2 billion.  (He does not say this, but we will. This means that special/rapid/express services between "stadium and Palladium" are somewhere down the list of urgent projects.) 

Could we maybe  get the mayoral candidates to debate this rather than how to run the educational system?

An aside.

We have not seen any pictures and we were just wondering.  Hopefully, none of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters at the statehouse were wearing Colts or Pacers gear.  Were there any signs asking for "free tickets?"  After all, here’s a chance to protest a local situation of tax dollars bailing out millionaire business owners.  The numbers may be a little smaller but surely they indicate corporate greed as well as anything in New York!

At least until they change the name, maybe we could call the movement "Occupy Georgia Street!"

A little repetition

The following is a quote from a posting on this website as of July 1, 2007 - four years ago.

"We’ll start with a quote from the editor’s column in this morning’s paper (7/1/07).

"Questions, questions and more questions.  I have them.  You have them.  With one difference.  I have a team of enquiring journalists to help provide answers, and that’s just what I want them to do. ...You can help.  Tell us what questions you may have that we may not have answered.... Be blunt, and tell us what part of the story we may have missed."  (Editors and staff were notified by email of the post.)

We re-print this because of phrasing in a column in yesterday’s paper which was headed, "News flash to city: Don’t keep public in the dark."

Reference is to the kerfluffle over the Georgia Street fiasco.  And one concept indicated in the column would seem to reveal a major problem in this city.  The author refers to public officials leaving the public "...out of the loop." and goes on to say, "Telling the public what’s going on too often seems to be an afterthought...."  (Our emphasis.)

Silly us.  All this time we’ve been waiting for those "enquiring journalists" to tell us "what’s going on."  We’ve been under the misapprehension that part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was placed there specifically to provide protection for a news media which just might ask embarrassing questions of public officials.

In our post, cited above, we asked 6 specific questions about downtown tax and revenue situations.  This was the 6^th question. "How many TIF districts are there in the city, to what purpose does each such district divert property tax revenues from city operating funds and what is the total amount of revenue being so diverted?

Yes, we know.  That’s really 3 questions.  May we assume that technicality is the reason we never heard from the editor, or that the paper, to our knowledge, ever has directly taken on any of the questions we posed?

One further thought.  The author of yesterday’s column has apparently bought the explanation that the whole idea of using Georgia Street as a memorial area was primary and not just gingerbread for Super Bowl visitors.  We happen to think someone came up with the idea to salvage a project which, without the idea, was so obviously a waste of $12 million for additional Super Bowl "eye candy."  It’s scary to think the whole thing would have gone almost without notice if the backers had not so stupidly insisted the street name had to be changed.

When public officials set out to waste taxpayer dollars, they’ll almost never volunteer that information to the provider of those dollars.  While media management policy approves press releases being scanned for typos and then printed as news, whatever the paper is spending on "enquiring journalists" is just more waste.

Do we have to...

...try to tie every need of the city to "economic development?"  The question comes to mind after reading the extensive commentary in the Sunday paper headlined "Not just for travel."

We would suggest that public transit is in fact 99.5% "just for travel."  People want to get from home to work, to school, to shop, to recreation, and back home.

There is extensive discussion of the area along College Avenue and its transportation/development situation.  It is suggested that the presence of light rail (street-cars) historically has resulted in "development" every four blocks or so between 38^th Street and Broad Ripple.

(Here, we can speak from some direct experience.  When first living here, with our bride-to-be residing in Broad Ripple, we spent many hours on College Avenue street-cars!)

It is vital that using terms like "commuter rail" and "light rail" as being virtually synonymous cease. Residents of an area around 28^th Street and College Avenue are said to hope that a commuter rail line will make a stop at that point.  We believe a commuter train rider from Noblesville will not expect to stop every four blocks or so in the city.  Nor will the street-car rider expect the car to skip every second or third block.

Presumably a commuter rail line will terminate at or near Union Station.  What is the benefit to a rider who lives along College Avenue and works at Methodist Hospital - or IUPUI - or Irvington?

We continue to insist that a well-planned grid of lines radiating out from the central city, with strategically placed cross-town lines, will, in fact, produce what will be most helpful to a majority of our citizens.  It will enable them to "travel" to points in the city which are important to them.  Economic development of all points in between is to be hoped for, but, we believe, cannot be a primary focus of basic transportation planning.

Commuter needs are separate and different.  Once more, we question the wisdom of initiating "commuter rail lines" while simultaneously constructing ever-widening freeways in direct, geographically close competition.

We also believe that a serious study of priorities would indicate that such a city-wide public transit system should definitely take precedence over commuter needs.  And we wonder whether the city’s history of outrageous priorities in approval of projects receiving public subsidy causes hesitation in supporting the possibility of a $2.4 billion boondoggle.

It’s a lot of money.  Haven’t we spent enough tax dollars trying to direct the location of economic activity?  Let’s try for a transit system which will actually benefit the users, and let the commercial development take place where the market indicates it will prosper.

Turn about

In the past we’ve berated the local daily paper for not asking questions about downtown goings on.  This morning’s front page story about the Georgia Street fiasco actually does ask one.

"Now do you want to change the name?"

In a word, "NO!"  In two words, "HELL NO!!"

We’re supposed to be bemused by the suggestion that some 30 memorial columns will be erected memorializing and honoring "great" Hoosiers.  No word as to who will name the honorees.

The whole $12.5 million turkey has been oriented around sports generally and the Super Bowl specifically. Apparently the so-called Super Bowl Host Committee has enough spare change lying around to volunteer to pay for half of this belated amendment to the over-all boondoggle.

We have to wonder whether dragging in non-sports related famous Hoosiers is a second thought resulting from the opposition to the whole project.  One name being mentioned is Benjamin Harrison.  Did he ever kick a last second field goal to beat the Chicago Bears?  Did he ever make an overtime three pointer to knock off the Chicago Bulls?

The mayor thinks it is embarrassing to have the street named after another state.  Does he lose sleep because the City-County Building is partially framed by Delaware and Alabama Streets?  Does he feel the anguish of those folks who live on cross-town thoroughfares named New York and Michigan streets?  (And Michigan Street doesn’t even run north-south!  Oh, the shame!)

We happen to think municipal shame more correctly should be directed at policies which allow these multi-million dollar expenditures of public funds on short-lived "cotton candy" for visitors while appropriate support for public libraries and public transportation, we are told, require the enactment of huge new taxes.

No, we don’t want to change the name of the street.  We only hope the entire project does not become a permanent drain on the taxpayer, to become known as "Union Station all over again."