Archive for the ‘Subsidies’ Category

« Older Entries

Colorado Governor Doesn’t Buy Sales Tax Giveaway

May 10, 2012

Westernaires and Color Guard in Downtown Denver opening the National Western Stock Show

Advocates of accountability and fiscal responsibility in Colorado recently achieved a major victory when Governor John Hickenlooper vetoed a controversial economic development bill.  SB 124 was designed to amend the state’s existing Regional Tourism Act, which allows Colorado’s Economic Development Commission to award portions of sales tax revenue as a subsidy to projects deemed important enough to attract out-of-state tourism dollars.  If signed by the Governor, it would have increased the number of allowable projects this year from two to six.

The bill was made all the more contentious by the fact that the Economic Development Commission is currently in possession of an application for the existing Regional Tourism subsidy from Gaylord Entertainment Co., which is constructing a massive hotel-convention center complex in Aurora, Colorado.  The complex, located close to Denver International Airport, has been criticized for its potential to leech convention center business from Denver.  Confirming these fears, the announcement by the Western Stock Show–a Denver institution for over a century–of its intent to relocate to Aurora gave the issue a public symbol in the media.  The Gaylord complex is already approved for a tax increment financing (TIF) subsidy by the city of Aurora and has applied for an additional $170 million in sales tax TIF subsidies through the state’s Regional Tourism Act.

Concerns over intra-regional competition for jobs and tax revenues was not lost on Gov. Hickenlooper, who in his veto letter stated: “the [Regional Tourism Act] does not contemplate…projects that are likely to serve only the interests of a particular community.”  The Governor’s decision also reflected his concern that politicizing subsidy-awarding process would reduce the program’s effectiveness and accountability.  “This [veto] will help ensure the state sales tax increment revenue is used appropriately, and that the EDC is awarding projects that will in fact drive tourism and economic development…we want to ensure that the RTA process remains competitive, resulting in the most ‘unique’ and ‘extraordinary’ projects being approved,” he wrote.

TIF subsidies derived from property tax are used liberally in Colorado by local governments, but the use of sales tax revenues as a subsidy has been restricted thus far.  Recent years have brought multiple ill-informed efforts to deregulate and loosen rules on the TIF-ing of sales tax.  Many of these proposed tax giveaways have been beaten back by a coalition of groups led by the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, which successfully defeated a number of wasteful business tax credit and subsidy bills this session.

Congratulations to our allies on their hard-earned victory!

Posted in Corporate relocations, Economic Recovery, Hidden Taxpayer Costs, Job Piracy, Jobs, Sales Tax, Sprawl, Subsidies, Tax Increment Financing | 4 Comments »

Living Wage Bill passes in the Big Apple

May 2, 2012
photo by Good Jobs New York

James Parrott of the Fiscal Policy Institute at a press conference on the Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act.

What started out as an attempt to guarantee benefits to Bronx residents at a redeveloped armory over a decade ago found its way to City Hall Monday with the passage of Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act. The bill was sponsored by Bronx Council Members G. Oliver Koppell and Annabel Palma.

Efforts to redevelop the city-owned armory fell through in 2009 when the city prevented a developer from entering into a Community Benefits Agreement with the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance. In response to that campaign and concerns regarding wages in city-subsidized developments, a new city-wide campaign for better wages took hold led by the Retail Wholesale Department Store Union and Living Wage NYC a coalition of community, civic and religious organizations.

The final version of the Living Wage bill is narrower than campaign organizers would have liked (tenants of subsidized project won’t be covered, for example). Still, supporters of the bill report it is the strongest living wage law in the country and assert this is only a first step to expand Living Wage ordinances in the city.

Information on the Fair Wages for New Yorkers bill can be found here, but the fundamentals are:

  • Commercial and Industrial firms receiving $1 million or more in discretionary subsidies and have gross revenue of $5 million or more would have to pay their employees at least $10.00 an hour or $11.50 if no health benefits are provided;
  • Developments on property sold by the city for more than $1 million below market value would be covered;
  • Manufacturers and nonprofit organizations would be exempt;
  • Tenants of subsidized firms (e.g., retail stores, restaurants) would be excluded.

On a worthwhile transparency note, the bill would require firms that receive more than $1 million in subsidies (whether or not a firm would be subject to the living wage requirement) to provide wage data for all employees in lower-wage sectors such as retail and restaurants. This goes beyond what is currently required in an already laudable transparency bill approved in December of 2010.

However, it is unclear whether this bill will go into effect. Last week, Mayor Bloomberg gave an address attacking wage requirements at subsidized firms and during a radio show compared them to Communism. Bloomberg has vowed to veto the bill and if that is overridden (as is expected) he will continue to fight it in the courts.

Regardless of the bill’s future, a victory lap is being taken by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, whose political dexterity has allowed her to use the issue advantageously as she positions herself to run for mayor next year, (Mayor Bloomberg is term-limited out of office). In the New York City Council, where bills generally only move forward with support of the Speaker, Quinn skillfully maneuvered the living wage bill through controversial waters. In the year ahead, irrespective of her audience, she can take credit with community and labor groups for her support of a campaign to help lift workers out of poverty and with the city’s business interests for curtailing the bill so much it would cover a relatively small portion of the city workforce.

Quinn has received both praise and criticism for walking out of a press conference celebrating the living wage bill when a heckler refused to apologize for calling Mayor Bloomberg a “Pharaoh”.

Posted in Community Benefits Agreements, Disclosure, Job Quality Standards, New York, Subsidies | Leave a Comment »

Subsidy Tracker Now Covers All 50 States

April 25, 2012

No part of the country is safe from the scrutiny of Subsidy Tracker, the Good Jobs First database of economic development subsidy awards. With the addition of data from Nevada and Mississippi, all 50 states and the District of Columbia are now represented in the search engine.

Nevada and Mississippi are present thanks to successful open records requests and the discovery of an obscure report. For Mississippi we have unpublished data from the state’s Workforce Education training program, which reimburses training costs for companies such as Nissan, Tyson’s Food and private prison operators CCA and GEO Group. For Nevada we have unpublished data on the Train Employees Now program as well as data on business tax abatements and sales and use tax abatements that were listed in 2009 report by the state legislature’s fiscal analysis division that just came to our attention.

Our latest batch of additions also includes unpublished data from programs in Connecticut, New York, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah (see below). Subsidy Tracker now contains company-specific data on more than 127,000 subsidy awards from 319 programs throughout the country. The depth of coverage still varies considerably from state to state, so we are continuing our push to obtain unpublished data on more and more subsidy programs.

New programs added

  • Connecticut: Digital Media and Film Tax Credit (FY2009-FY2011)
  • Mississippi: Workforce Education training program (FY2009-FY2011)
  • Nevada: Business Tax Abatement (FY1999-FY2008)
  • Nevada: Sales and Use Tax Abatement (FY1999-FY2008)
  • Nevada: Train Employees Now (Apr2011-Mar2012)
  • New York: Job Development Authority Direct Loan Program (2006-Mar2012)
  • New York: Jobs Now (2006-Mar2012)
  • New York: Manufacturing Assistance Program (2006-Mar2012)
  • Oklahoma: Training for Industry (FY2008-FY2011)
  • Texas: Skills Development Fund (FY2009-FY2011)
  • Utah: Custom Fit Training Program (FY2009-FY2011)

New years added:

  • Hawaii: Enterprise Zones (now 2007 and 2011)
  • Virginia: Special Performance Grants (FY2009-FY2011)

Posted in Disclosure, Subsidies, Subsidy Tracker | Leave a Comment »

Diebold Pushes Ohio Down the “PIT”

April 24, 2012

The recent announcement that Diebold, Inc. would be laying off hundreds of employees from its Ohio headquarters despite having received massive job retention subsidies designed by the state specifically for its benefit came as little surprise.  (We’ve seen it before with Sears, Dell, Boeing, ad naseum.)  The same day, Good Jobs First released “Paying Taxes to the Boss” a report in which we describe the disquieting economic development practice of states allowing employees’ personal income taxes (PIT) to be leveraged as corporate job subsidies.

Among the 22 programs we analyzed in our report is Ohio’s Job Retention Tax Credit (JRTC), which underwent controversial changes last year under the Kasich administration.  At that time, both American Greetings and Diebold were considering relocating their corporate headquarters out of the state.  In response to this job blackmail, Ohio legislators tweaked the JRTC rules to make the credit refundable for companies with a written offer of subsidies from another state.

In the end, Diebold signed a $55 million subsidy agreement (including $30 million in JRTCs) with the state in exchange for a promise to retain 1,500 workers and construct a new headquarters facility.  The catch?  Diebold employed 1,900 people in Ohio at the time the subsidy agreement was finalized.  One year ago our prescient friends at Plunderbund correctly predicted what would come next – the state would be subsidizing Diebold while the company slashed its workforce.  Last Thursday the company announced its intent to move 200 jobs to India, bringing its total state employment down to approximately 1,550 workers.

Diebold’s reasoning for seeking job subsidies from other states is a perfect example of how PIT-based programs accelerate the race to the bottom.  The company claimed it was unable to compete after its chief rival, NCR Corp. relocated to Georgia with the assistance of the state’s Mega Project Tax Credit, yet another PIT subsidy spending program.  (For descriptions of Georgia’s many personal income tax diversion subsidies, see “Paying Taxes to the Boss.”)

The use of workers’ personal income taxes as corporate giveaways fuels already rampant interstate job piracy.  PIT diversions negate the benefits that economic development projects should have on diminishing state tax revenues.  At this rate, it’s not even helping retain jobs in Ohio.  The Diebold situation is proof of that.  Lawmakers should not need more evidence that this is failed economic development policy.

Unfortunately, its failure to generate real economic development hasn’t stopped more states from adopting this foolhardy practice.  Last year Oregon created the Business Retention and Expansion Program, a subsidy that will allow recipient businesses to receive the taxes of workers as forgiveable loans.

Posted in Clawbacks, Corporate relocations, Job Blackmail, Job Piracy, Jobs, Subsidies | Leave a Comment »

Where Are Workers’ Taxes Actually Going? Report: State Withholding Taxes Increasingly Pay for Corporate Subsidies Rather than Public Services

April 12, 2012

Nearly $700 million a year in state income taxes withheld from worker paychecks in 16 states is being used to provide lavish subsidies to corporations rather than paying for vital public services. These diversions have gone to more than 2,700 companies, including major firms such as Sears, Goldman Sachs and General Electric. Few if any of the affected workers are aware, because no state requires they be informed on their pay stubs.

These are the key findings of Paying Taxes to the Boss: How a Growing Number of States Subsidize Companies with the Withholding Taxes of Workers, a study published today by Good Jobs First, a non-profit, non-partisan research center based in Washington, DC. It is available at www.goodjobsfirst.org.

“Diversion of personal income tax revenues into subsidies violates how economic development has been defined,” said Good Jobs First Executive Director Greg LeRoy. “States are draining a revenue source that helps many of them address structural deficits.”

Paying Taxes to the Boss traces the rise of 22 subsidy programs derived from personal income taxes (PIT) that together cost about $684 million a year. “These programs are justified in the name of job creation, but they often end up subsidizing companies to move existing jobs from one state to another. In other cases, they go to employers that threaten to move unless they get paid to stay put,” said Philip Mattera, research director of Good Jobs First and principal author of the report.

“We recommend that states seriously consider abolishing PIT-based subsidies. Short of that, we urge Truth in Taxation: that companies be required to disclose the details of how much money is going where on every pay stub of affected workers,”  LeRoy added.

The report examines the following PIT-based subsidy programs:

  • Colorado: Job Growth Incentive Tax Credit
  • Connecticut: Job Creation Tax Credit
  • Georgia: Job Tax Credits
  • Georgia: Research and Development Tax Credit
  • Illinois: Economic Development for a Growing Economy (EDGE) Tax Credit
  • Indiana: Economic Development for a Growing Economy (EDGE) Tax Credit
  • Kansas: Promoting Employment Across Kansas (PEAK) Program
  • Kentucky: Kentucky Business Investment (KBI) Program
  • Kentucky: Kentucky Industrial Revitalization Act (KIRA)
  • Maine: Employment TIF (ETIF)
  • Maine: Shipbuilding Facility Credit
  • Mississippi: Impact Withholding Rebate Program/Existing Industry Withholding Rebate Program
  • Mississippi: Mississippi Advantage Jobs Incentive Program
  • Missouri: Quality Jobs Program
  • Missouri: The Missouri Automotive Manufacturing Jobs Act
  • New Jersey: Business Employment Incentive Program (BEIP)
  • New Mexico: High Wage Jobs Tax Credit
  • North Carolina: Job Development Investment Grants (JDIG)
  • Ohio: Job Creation Tax Credit
  • Ohio: Job Retention Tax Credit
  • South Carolina: Job Development Credits
  • Utah: Economic Development TIF (EDTIF)

Some of the programs have been around since the 1990s, but in recent years more states have enacted them: six of the 22 programs (and portions of others) were enacted since the beginning of 2009.

The programs work in various ways. Some allow employers to immediately retain (and never remit to the state) a large portion of the withholding taxes generated by designated new or retained workers. Some provide cash rebates or grants calculated the same way. Others provide credits against corporate income taxes or other business levies, with the value of those credits based on the withholding taxes of new or retained workers. (Some of these credits are cash-refundable if the credit exceeds the company’s tax liability.)  The share of withholding taxes diverted into subsidies can be as high as 100 percent (such as EDGE tax credits in Illinois and Indiana) and the duration can be as long as 25 years (such as Mississippi’s Withholding Rebates). Twelve programs divert 75 percent or more of withholding, and 18 do so for ten years or longer.

The most expensive program is New Jersey’s BEIP, which in FY2011 approved new grants worth up to $73.2 million over their multi-year terms and disbursed $178 million during the year for previously approved contracts. Among states with subsidy recipient disclosure, those with the largest number of participants in PIT-based programs are: Ohio (567), Kentucky (509), Illinois (315), New Jersey (306) and Indiana (283).

The report also highlights how such programs fuel the “economic war among the states” and “job blackmail.” For example, Kansas gave AMC Entertainment $47 million in PEAK subsidies last year to get the movie theatre chain to move its headquarters from downtown Kansas City, Missouri about 10 miles across the state line to suburban Leawood. In Illinois, Motorola Mobility (now part of Google) last year got state officials to provide $100 million in EDGE tax credits over ten years to keep its headquarters in the Chicago suburb of Libertyville.

Posted in Subsidies | Leave a Comment »

Subsidies and Sunshine

March 14, 2012

This being Sunshine Week, there’s a lot of discussion going on about open government. One of the things government should be open about is the dubious practice of giving subsidies to companies in the name of economic development.

Each year, state and local governments in the United States award tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks, cash grants and other financial assistance to business, with the lion’s share going to large corporations ranging from Google and Facebook to Wal-Mart and Boeing. Much of the money goes to companies that don’t need it and often provide little return to taxpayers in terms of creating quality jobs.

The good news is that it is easier than ever to discover which companies are getting the giveaways. A decade ago, only a handful of states disclosed the names of subsidy recipients. That number is now up to 43 states and the District of Columbia. Data from those 44 jurisdictions—along with previously unpublished data from five other states—can be found on Subsidy Tracker, the database created by my colleagues and me at Good Jobs First. The only states with no data currently available are Mississippi and Nevada, but we’re seeking unpublished info from them as well.

A glance at the inventory of data sources that have been fed into Subsidy Tracker makes it clear that there is a great deal of variation in the depth of available information from state to state. We have entries for two dozen programs in Washington and Wisconsin, yet only one each for Alabama, California, Idaho, Massachusetts and Tennessee.

There are also significant differences in the types of subsidies for which recipient information is available. A major dividing line is between those states that have disclosure relating to corporate tax credits (or other business tax breaks) and those that keep that information secret even while revealing data on other categories such as grants. According to our latest tally, 31 states plus DC provide online disclosure of corporate tax break recipients. The ones with the most extensive tax subsidy reporting include Missouri, North Carolina and Rhode Island.

Among the states that are aggressive promoters of corporate tax breaks but which decline to reveal which companies are benefiting from that largesse are Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, New Mexico and Tennessee. A few states—including Maryland and South Carolina—disclose the names of companies but not the value of the credits they are receiving.

Subsidy disclosure is an issue addressed in Following the Money 2012, a new report by USPIRG, the third in its series of report-card studies on state spending transparency. USPIRG provides a thorough assessment of the Google-government portals that have proliferated in recent years. The report does a good job when it comes to general state spending, but we at Good Jobs First have a friendly disagreement about its treatment of subsidies. (I am graciously cited in the acknowledgements for having reviewed drafts of the report, but the disagreements I expressed to USPIRG are not mentioned).

Despite the fact that company-specific reporting on subsidies is missing from the core content of nearly all state transparency portals, USPIRG gives many of those portals high grades for subsidy transparency. Quite a few of the sites have links to other webpages with the subsidy data, and we have no objection if USPIRG wants to awards points for that practice.

The problem is that USPIRG’s scoring category on subsidies also covers grants, some of which are economic development subsidies but many of which are not. The distinction is not made clear, and in numerous cases it appears that the data treated by USPIRG as subsidy disclosure is actually information relating to other kinds of grants to non-governmental entities. For example, the Massachusetts transparency portal (which is given 8 of 10 points in the subsidy category) lists grants to non-profit organizations for providing social services, but it does not cover the state’s job creation programs. The latter include tax credits that will soon be disclosed, thanks to the efforts of groups such as PIRG’s Massachusetts affiliate.

It is understandable that USPIRG, in its effort to promote the march of government openness, would want to take a flexible position about what constitutes transparency. But the fact of the matter is that most online subsidy disclosure is still fragmented, occurring through far-flung webpages and obscure PDF reports. That’s precisely why we at Good Jobs First created Subsidy Tracker, which brings all those disparate sources (plus unpublished data) together in one national search engine.

Centralized state transparency portals are certainly a welcome development, and we salute USPIRG for promoting them, but they are not yet an effective means of educating the public on big giveaways of tax dollars.

Cross-posted from the Dirt Diggers Digest.

Posted in Disclosure, Subsidies | 2 Comments »

South Carolina Joins Subsidy Tracker

March 12, 2012

South Carolina has become the 48th state to be represented in Subsidy Tracker, the Good Jobs First database of company-specific economic development subsidy awards. That leaves only Mississippi and Nevada with no entries, but we are working to rectify that through requests for unpublished data (neither state has any online disclosure). Subsidy Tracker now contains more than 121,000 awards from 308 programs in those 48 states and the District of Columbia.

Until recently we thought that South Carolina was also a non-disclosure state, but my colleague Kasia Tarczynska discovered online postings of some obscure reports produced by the state’s commerce department for the state legislature. The reports—annual summaries of enterprise zone activity—list which companies have gotten approval for their “revitalization agreements” in connection with the Job Development Credit Program. They also list the same for the Job Retraining Credit Program. Unfortunately, the lists do not include the size of the credits each company is receiving, though in the case of the retraining credits they include the number of workers eligible for the retraining.

We have also continued our quest for both published and unpublished information for other programs. Here are the latest datasets we have obtained:

- Colorado: Colorado First Training Program (FY2010-FY2011)
- Colorado: Existing Industry Training Program (FY2010-FY2011)
- Delaware: Blue Collar Training Grant (1997 to Jan 2012)
- Kansas: Kansas Economic Opportunity Initiatives Fund (2007-2012)
- Minnesota: Minnesota Investment Fund (2007-2011)
- Missouri: Chapter 100 Industrial Revenue Bonds (2009-2011)
- South Carolina: Enterprise Zone Job Development Credit (2005-2007; 2009-2010)
- South Carolina: Enterprise Zone Job Retraining Credit (2005-2007; 2009-2010)
- Virginia: Virginia Jobs Investment Program (FY2009-FY2011)
- Washington: Job Skills Program (FY2009-FY2011)

new years
- Iowa: Research Activities Credit (now 2009-2011)
- Maine: Business Equipment Tax Reimbursement Program (now FY2009-FY2011)
- Missouri: Quality Jobs Program (now 2000-2011)

Posted in Disclosure, Subsidies | 1 Comment »

What’s NOT the Matter with Kansas and Arkansas?

February 17, 2012

Kansas and Arkansas are not big on subsidy transparency, but they are now represented for the first time in Good Jobs First’s Subsidy Tracker database. Using open records requests, we obtained data on nine corporate tax credit programs in Arkansas and two training programs in Kansas. This leaves only three states—Mississippi, Nevada and South Carolina—with no data in Subsidy Tracker. We are trying to obtain unpublished data from them as well.

The Kansas and Arkansas additions are part of the latest expansion of Subsidy Tracker: 20 new programs from a total of seven states. One of those states is Oregon, which recently began to post information on corporate tax credits pursuant to legislation enacted last year as the result of efforts by groups such as OSPIRG.

Subsidy Tracker now has more than 118,000 entries from 298 programs in 47 states and the District of Columbia. Below is a list of the latest programs added to the database.

Arizona: Arizona Competes Fund
Arkansas: Advantage Arkansas Income Tax Credits
Arkansas: ArkPlus Income Tax Credit
Arkansas: Create Rebate Program
Arkansas: Economic Investment Tax Credit
Arkansas: InvestArk Sales and Use Tax Credits
Arkansas: Sales and Use Tax Refund for Targeted Business
Arkansas: Targeted Business In-House Research Credits
Arkansas: Targeted Business Payroll Credits
Arkansas: TaxBack Sales and Use Tax Refunds
Kansas: Kansas Industrial Retraining
Kansas: Kansas Industrial Training
New Mexico: Film Investment Program
North Carolina: Industrial Development Fund
North Carolina: Job Maintenance and Capital Development Fund
North Carolina: Site Infrastructure Development Fund
Oregon: Employer Workforce Training Fund
Oregon: Greenlight Oregon Labor Rebate
Oregon: Oregon Investment Advantage Program
Rhode Island: Comprehensive Workforce Training Grants

Posted in Disclosure, Subsidies | 1 Comment »

NYC Unleashes Decades of Subsidy Data

February 1, 2012

After years of nudging by Good Jobs New York and others, subsidy transparency in the Big Apple took a giant leap forward yesterday.

Thanks to the New York City Council and a bill sponsored by Brooklyn’s Diana Reyna, the New York City Industrial Development Agency released data on 623 discretionary subsidy deals. The new report – which includes data as far back at the 1980’s – is trend-setting for being in excel (not just in PDF format) and for including all currently subsidized firms. Previous reports were only required to include project for a seven-year window. Previously, GJNY transcribed this data from PDF’s to create its “Database of Deals” and we will merge the two databases giving New Yorkers of all stripes: advocates, community organizers, elected and public officials, journalists and academics a unique tool that shines a light on how discretionary subsides are allocated.

As we explained in October of 2011 when the bill was passed, New York City is on an up- swing with regards to subsidy transparency. The report, formally known as the Annual Investment Projects Report, includes 126 fields of data including:

  • Current employment, promised employment and employment at time of deal
  • The amounts and types of city subsidies used to date and remaining
  •   Amount of subsidies recaptured
  • Percentage of employees that are city resident
  • Percentage of employees offered health benefits

Combining new subsidy deals, extensive company-specific data in a downloadable, excel format makes what we believe, to be the country’s best local subsidy disclosure report. Though, as reported last month, New York State still has plenty of room for improvement.

Good Jobs New York will be reviewing the data in the weeks ahead and will report back our findings. In the meantime, we encourage you to do the same!

Posted in Clawbacks, Disclosure, Jobs, New York, Property Taxes, Sales Tax, Subsidies | 1 Comment »

PIRG Releases Report on TIF in Chicago as 3 Major Companies Return $34 million to Taxpayers

January 31, 2012

Chicago has long endured damage to its budget from Tax Increment Financing (TIF) chicanery. But with Mayor Rahm Emanuel pledging to take on TIF reform, change may be afoot. A new report released today by the Illinois Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) demands better transparency and accountability for TIF in Chicago. This includes incorporating TIF into the city’s budget process, linking spending to economic development plans instead of political patronage, requiring better outcomes, measuring outcomes, utilizing clawbacks for failure to meet benchmarks, and ending TIF districts once the economic development goal has been achieved. Much of what PIRG is asking echoes suggestions made by a panel appointed by Mayor Emanuel that studied the city’s TIF problems. Many of these recommendations have not yet been implemented.

In response to PIRG and other criticisms, Mayor Emanuel has pledged an improved transparency portal, better than the one we discussed last May, which was already a vast improvement.

And yesterday, to our surprise, recipients of major TIF subsidies have decided to return $34 million to the city. These recipients include the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), CNA Group and Bank of America. CME’s subsidies were enabled by a controversial new state law. It’s not clear exactly why these recipients are choosing this particular moment in time to return subsidies, but reports indicate that shortfalls on job creation pledges and negative publicity may have played a role.

With 10 percent of Chicago’s revenues tripped up in TIF spending, it is clear that Chicago needs more transparency and accountability on TIF.

Posted in Clawbacks, Illinois, Jobs, Subsidies, Tax Increment Financing | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.