« Frustraton | Main | Mixed emotions »

February 26, 2014

Comments

sjudge

not at all sure what you mean by "making the park a separate TIF project." The TIF needs tax revenue to spend money, and, if you assume the park needs to get built (first) in order to create the investment around it, where does the money within that "separate" TIF come from?

Fred McCarthy

sjudge - The whole theory of Tax "Incremental" Financing is to borrow funds for the project and pay that debt in the future with the "incremental" revenue resulting from the project.

sjudge

but you borrow against the actual property tax revenues that are created within the district, not tax revenues that might be generated by something that's not being built, and the park, by itself, won't generate taxes. In this case, it's the Browning project that will generate taxes, so you borrow against that tax flow and pay for the park.

Fred McCarthy

sjudge - The problem here is the application of the TIF theory. The "district" implies the idea that the project involved will enhance the properties immediately around it, thereby "incrementally" increasing property tax revenues. By the use of outlandishly circumscribed districts, we have the possibility of claiming that a project in Broad Ripple is also affecting property values miles away for the benefit of a park. If there is inadequate economic activity generated by the park, TIF money should not be a part of the equation. Unfortunately, the excessive use of TIF operations is precisely what makes the city lack the funds to handle city-wide municipal park problems as they should be.

sjudge

That's the "theory' advanced by those who wanted the TIF District just to include Mapleton-Fall Creek and tiny portions of MK and BT - the problem being that no one wanted to build anything in those areas, even with TIF $. So, the TIF District was expanded to include more desirable areas to generate proceeds that could be used to make enhancements to the less derivable areas to, hopefully, attract investment there.

Fred McCarthy

sjudge - Well, it then seems the obvious answer is to make the entire city one big TIF district and let the politicians spray all increases in property tax revenues in any direction most beneficial to them, and where they think development ought to take place. Then we can add a commuter income tax to pick up the slack. Apparently the people can't be trusted to go where they want to go and do they want to do. If Washington is "Big Brother," does that make city hall "Little Brother?"

sjudge

Of course, we wouldn't be talking about a commuter tax if those darned "trusted" folks would just stop coming into Marion County for silly stuff, like their jobs... :)

Fred McCarthy

Nor would we be talking about commuter taxes if TIF districts were not diverting so much property tax revenue away from legitimate municipal functions. I'm still a great fan of reviewing where the money is going before deciding we need more of it.

Gene Poole

Regardless of "original intent," TIF's are now crony capped bundling & parasitic extraction schemes; improperly disclosed, insidiously operated against the public interest. TIFs are a corruption of government's LIMITED charter, which doesn't include business or real estate development; the low fruit of public treasure anglers.

Broad Ripple TIF'ers have paid too little attention to new FEMA regulations of their statist brethren; affecting ALL development within a flood plain...

The comments to this entry are closed.