Archive for the ‘Property Taxes’ Category

“Gaming the Tax Code” Hearing Yields No Winners

October 28, 2008

It didn’t break through the coverage of the presidential election or the meltdown of our financial system, but corporate welfare was center stage at the Capitol last Friday.

In his fourth Congressional hearing into the economic benefits – or lack thereof – of taxpayer-subsidized stadiums, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) summoned to Washington the masterminds of America’s most expensive stadium: the Yankees’ new palace going up in the South Bronx. There was Randy Levine, President of the Yankees; Seth Pinksy, President of the New York City Economic Development Corporation; Martha Stark, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Finance defending the project. Also testifying was Assembly Member Richard Brodsky who as Chairman of the state’s Assembly Committee on Corporations, Commissions and Authorities is conducting an investigation into the use of public financing for the project.

If attendees (yours truly sat in)  and web watchers (see www.fieldofschemes.com and www.atlanticyardsreport for the play by play) expected the hearing to clarify how the Yankees project  – considered by many the murkiest deal in recent New York history – got a bundle of bond financing, they came away disappointed. (more…)

Will Chicago’s Budget Crisis Finally Curb TIF?

October 21, 2008

Chicago city government faces a two-year deficit of at least $469 million, with additional massive shortfalls looming through 2012. Mayor Richard Daley has proposed some draconian steps: laying off over 900 city workers, eliminating over 1,300 unfilled positions, raising city amusement and parking taxes, and imposing six days of unpaid leave on “non-essential” city employees.

Daley blames the unexpectedly large deficit on the economy, but others are citing causes the mayor is not eager to discuss, such as the city’s overuse of tax increment finance districts (TIFs). Chicago had 37 TIF districts in 1997; it now has 155; they can last 23 years and even be extended 12 years beyond that.

The original purpose of TIF in Illinois was to help genuinely “blighted” neighborhoods. However, under Daley, Chicago has been a leader in making TIF an all-purpose development and attraction tool even in already thriving or growing parts of Chicago, including the commercial/financial powerhouse called the Central Loop.

In their analyses of the city’s budget crisis, both dailies, (the Tribune and the Sun-Times), and an alternative weekly (the Reader) have all cited TIF’s massive diversion of property tax revenue –now $500 million annually –from city services, schools, parks and other local services.

The revived debate over TIF’s harm to public services is a tribute to the now-defunct Neighborhood Capital Budget Group. As their ground-breaking 2001 study Who Pays for the Only Game in Town? revealed, many Chicago TIFs are in areas that were the opposite of blighted. Now the high price of diverting revenue from areas that were already rising in value without the TIF boost is coming home to roost.

Despite these pressures, Mayor Daley stands by his TIFs, telling Tribune editors: “If we didn’t have that [TIF], we’d be in deep (bleep).” But some change is evident. The city recently dropped efforts (described in the earlier blog The TIF That Won’t Die?) to extend by 12 years the massive Central Loop TIF district when Gov. Blagojevich reportedly demanded more disclosure on its “winners and losers.”

“Super TIF” EATs Kansas City Alive!

September 25, 2008

The recent opening of a nine-story office building in Kansas City serves as a reminder of the intense controversy in that city over the abuse of tax-increment financing. The Briarcliff development was a major point of contention in last year’s mayoral race, when candidate Mark Funkhouser (who won the election) denounced the developer’s use of an extreme form of that financing tool known as Super TIF.

Whereas a regular TIF district takes a bite out of local tax revenues, a Super TIF project will swallow them whole. Super TIFs redirect 100 percent of the property tax increment and 100 percent of the economic activity tax (aptly, EAT) increment of the development district. Super TIF is a project specific designation given to development already occurring within a TIF district.

Included in the EAT increment are corporate and individual earnings taxes, sales tax for retail and utilities, use taxes, convention and tourism taxes on food and beverage sales, gross receipts taxes and franchise fees. Use of TIF and Super TIF in Kansas City continues to rise and is projected to result in a 27 percent growth rate in tax increment payments made to the private sector next year. In the meantime, the city’s tax revenues have risen by only 7 percent.

Widespread abuse of TIF as a redevelopment tool for urban economic blight in Kansas City led to the creation of the Super TIF mechanism. Its original intent was to allow legitimately blighted areas compete with regular TIF districts in Kansas City’s suburban greenfields. However, if developments such as Briarcliff are any indication of Super TIF’s future, it appears that it too is on its way to becoming perceived as entitlement by developers. The Briarcliff project, a hotel and office building development in an upscale area of Kansas City, received $26.7 million in TIF and Super TIF for a $91 million expansion in 2006. Regarding the project, Councilwoman Bonnie Sue Cooper, engineer of the gigantic incentive, put it accurately: “We’re kind of the cash cow.” No disagreement here.

Legislative Umpires Call Yankees Out

September 19, 2008

The controversy around the public financing of the new Yankee Stadium heated up this week as a New York State legislator and a member of Congress put the squeeze on the team and New York City officials who helped finance the $1.3 billion stadium.

Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, New York Assemblyman Richard Brodsky revealed that his summer-long investigation into the public financing of the new stadium shows that the city’s job creation figures and property tax assessments might not be up to par.  And Rep. Dennis Kucinich, chairman of the Subcommittee who has held two previous hearings on the use of tax-exempt bond financing for stadiums said:

“In the case of the new Yankee Stadium, not only have we found waste and abuse of public dollars subsidizing a project that is for the exclusive benefit of a private entity, the Yankees, but also we have discovered serious questions about the accuracy of certain representations made by the City of New York to the federal government.”

(more…)

Leading Indiana Business Journal Calls for Halt to Subsidy “Charade”

August 7, 2008

Reacting to a recent spate of taxpayer-subsidized corporate relocations from existing central Indiana sites to nearby communities, the state’s leading business paper has urged officials to be more tight-fisted when confronted with business threats to relocate outside the region or state.

In a recent article, Indianapolis Business Journal reporter Peter Schnitzler begins with Bowen Engineering receiving a property tax break worth $290,000 over seven years to move its headquarters and 103 jobs from suburban Fishers in Hamilton County to Indianapolis —a distance of 8.5 miles.

Since Indianapolis and other central Indiana cities claim not to poach each other’s companies, officials of the unified Indianapolis/Marion County government approached Bowen only after the company threatened to leave central Indiana entirely if its space needs were not met. As the Business Journal article describes, Bowen’s move was part of a trend; over the past year at least six companies have shuffled jobs and investment between Indianapolis and nearby suburbs.

These relocations have been accompanied by substantial subsidies—at least $23.4 million in training, infrastructure and property tax breaks, as well as tax breaks yet to be quantified. Although the Bowen deal brings jobs to Indianapolis, overall the city has been the loser. For example, nearly 80 percent, or $18.3 million, of the recent subsidies went to moving the Indianapolis operations of SMC, a pneumatic and electronic-controls manufacturer, to the fast-growing nearby suburb of Noblesville. Indianapolis lost 500 jobs.

State and local officials claim they are not poaching or shuffling companies, but are merely “doing whatever’s necessary to keep companies in the region.” Speaking to Schnitzler, Good Jobs First Executive Director Greg LeRoy countered that the recently subsidized companies were very likely not about to bolt to Kentucky or southern Ohio: “Companies want to retain their skilled employees and proximity to suppliers and customers. They are where they are for good reason.” Subsidizing intra-regional relocations most often aggravates suburban sprawl at the expense of needier urban areas.

In a subsequent editorial, the Business Journal said the “rumblings about leaving the area” that accompanied the recent subsidy deals “all seem like a charade to us,” adding that the easy availability of incentives makes “companies feel like suckers if they don’t seek a handout.” The editorial urged state and local officials to end the charade and be stingier with such hand-outs. Hopefully more business-oriented publications in Indiana and elsewhere confronting similar subsidy games will start making the same point.

A New Controversy at the New Yankee Stadium

July 29, 2008

If you’ve been watching the antics around the development of the new Yankee Stadium, it shouldn’t be a surprise that another controversy has taken place.

The issue being raised in recent days by Rep. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and New York Assembly Member Richard Brodsky is that city officials may have lent a helping hand to the Yankees by boosting the value of the land for the new Yankee Stadium for property tax purposes.

It appears that city assessors jacked up the value of the land under the new stadium so that the Yankees would receive nearly a billion dollars in tax free bonds. Making the land more valuable allowed more borrowing.

Juan Gonzalez of the Daily News reported yesterday that the city may have estimated the value of the stadium seven times over. He reports that one estimate stands at $275 a square foot, far from what is land is valued in the South Bronx.

Rep. Kucinich isn’t holding back and has requested documents related to assessments from the Internal Revenue Service, National Park Service (the city needed the NPS’s OK since the new stadium is being built on a park upgraded with federal funds), New York City Department of Finance, New York City Economic Development Agency (that via its Industrial Development Agency allocated $942 million in tax-free bonds) and Randy Levine, President of the New York Yankees. Kucinich’s committee expects to hold a hearing in September.

It’s worth pointing out that neither Kucinich, the Congress Member from Ohio nor Brodsky represent New York City. One can only guess why elected representatives from New York City are sitting this one out. Brodsky represents a portion of suburbs north of the city and is chair of the Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions.

Media alert: I’m scheduled to appear on tomorrow’s (Wednesday’s) edition of Democracy Now! (check out your stations listings or podcast info) hosted by Juan Gonzalez about the Yankee project with others to include guests Rep. Kucinich and stadium subsidy guru Neil deMause.

Volkswagen’s Tennessee Subsidy Deal: Are Taxpayers Being Taken for a Ride?

July 24, 2008

Tennessee officials are still celebrating Volkswagen’s announcement last week that it will build a new assembly plant in Chattanooga, describing it as a big step toward their state becoming the nation’s number one auto producer. The state has apparently at least gained the more dubious status of providing the biggest subsidies to date for a foreign-owned carmaker–a package reportedly worth at least a half billion dollars.

According to reporting by Chattanooga Times Free Press reporters Andy Sher and Dave Flessner, the state and Chattanooga-area local governments have pledged the following to land the $1 billion investment and related 2,000 jobs:

1,350 acres of land worth $81 million.

At least $30 million for worker training improvements, and a $6 million technical training center.

$43 million in road and highway improvements, and $3.5 million for rail connections.

$200 million in job tax credits over 20 years.

Between $150 million to $350 million in property tax breaks over 30 years, depending on how well Volkswagen meets job and investment targets. However, VW will pay the education portion of property taxes, about $5.5 million yearly.

Other subsidies of unspecified value, including machinery sales tax exemptions, and low cost loans and energy credits from the federal Tennessee Valley Authority.

Michigan and Alabama were reportedly Tennessee’s main competitors for the VW plant, although the strong United Autoworkers presence in Michigan seems to have made that state a distant third.

Putting the cart before the horse, Tennessee’s economic development commissioner said the University of Tennessee would do a cost-benefit analysis of the VW deal later this year, after its costs are fully known. That this evaluation will be very critical may be doubted since a previous UT study of the Nissan headquarters deal (which cost Tennessee state and local governments $197 million) reportedly attributed to it an unlikely economic benefit of half billion dollars a year.

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat and former Nashville Mayor with a history of getting big subsidies for computer giant Dell, Nissan and a football stadium is unembarrassed by the deal’s cost:“I don’t know whether it’s fair that a Mercedes Benz costs $90,000, I just know if I want one that’s what I’ve got to pay.”

Whether a half billion dollars, or $250,000 per job, is in fact the real going rate for an auto plant is less clear, however. The exact importance of subsidies in a company’s location decision remains locked in “a black box”, but is generally limited. In fact, VW spokespeople acknowledged the attraction of the incentives but stressed the particular importance of those for worker skills and site preparation, which form a comparatively small part of the mammoth package.

Successive interstate competitions for big auto assembly plants–which began in the Midwest in the 1970s and have occurred repeatedly in the South over the past decade–have often led to overspending as states try to outbid each other, and then to a sense of fiscal hangover when the competition is over.

Although the euphoria and industrial recruitment folklore surrounding the deal—Senator Lamar Alexander serenading VW executives with a rendition of “Chattanooga Choo-Choo”– seem to have at least delayed that hangover’s onset. The euphoria has also muted concerns about whether, how and when Tennessee will recoup its “investment,” but those concerns are real.

For example, Tennessee officials promise that new auto supplier firms —which may themselves get subsidies to locate near VW– will help offset the deal’s costs. But Business Week has suggested that numerous such firms already located in Alabama and elsewhere in the South could serve the plant with existing capacity. And Alabama is already scheming to land suppliers for the new plant. Continued intense competition like this between Tennessee and other states, and between VW and its competitors, may eventually make the state’s huge subsidy deal seem more like a costly gamble.

The TIF That Won’t Die?

June 13, 2008

The Chicago Reader reported last week on the 18-month lifespan extension of a downtown TIF district that had already benefited from hundreds of millions in diverted property tax revenue and had been scheduled for retirement in 2007. The current extension is rumored to be a dress rehearsal for a full 12-year extension.

The Central Loop TIF district was created in 1984 to spur development in the apparently jinxed Block 37—where plans for a new station providing rapid transit to O’Hare Airport have just collapsed—but it now covers a wide swath of the Loop, one of the nation’s leading business and commercial hubs. The district’s geographic expansion is an especially glaring example of how state and local governments in Illinois have turned TIF into a largely unregulated diversion of property tax revenue to spur development in already affluent or thriving areas.

Having burst its original physical boundaries, the Central Loop TIF district, like others in the state, has stretched its physical life as well. In Illinois, TIF districts are supposedly created for areas designated as “blighted”, allowing increases in property tax revenue in the district to be reserved for further economic development rather than allocated to local taxing authorities. State law originally limited the ordinary duration of TIF districts to 23 years, and public officials seeking to create TIFs still cite this time limit.

However, the Reader’s Ben Joravsky, who has extensively covered the cost to taxpayers, education, and public services of TIF overuse/abuse, recently reported that the Chicago City Council in 2000 quietly extended the original 23-year lifespan of the Central Loop TIF district, due to expire in June 2007, to December 2008.

The extension was made possible by a 1999 state measure pushed by Mayor Daley and City of Chicago lobbyists, who claimed TIF districts were being short-changed because of the lag between when taxes were levied and when they are actually collected. However, Joravsky cited figures from the Cook County Clerk’s office that show the Central Loop TIF had already collected over $2 million in diverted tax revenue within three months of its creation in 1984.

With the extended duration of some TIF districts to as long as 35 or 36 years–an eternity for school districts, park districts, and other services dependent on property tax revenue– their economic development promise has become a nightmare.

The cost to schools and other public services and the unaccountability of Chicago’s TIF districts has long been controversial, due to the pioneering critiques of the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group (now defunct), the Center for Economic Progress and Illinois Housing Action. Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigly also has called for more accountability and openness in TIF expenditures by Chicago and its suburbs.

Even the Civic Federation, a leading Chicago business organization, called in 2005 for the Central Loop and some other Chicago TIF districts to be retired so tax revenues could be restored. Last year a Federation report called for a city TIF budget, since “TIF expenditures now occur in such a sporadic and obscure fashion that voters have difficulty knowing what’s really happening.”

The tax revenues appropriated by TIF districts in economically robust areas are large.Last year, the Cook County Clerk’s office noted that the Central Loop TIF was one of two Chicago TIFs that “alone are collecting more revenue ($152.5 million) this year than all Cook County spends from property taxes toward public health.” According to county figures cited by the Reader, the extension of the Central Loop TIF has meant an additional windfall of $48 million in diverted revenue for the first half of 2008 alone.

Nevertheless, Mayor Daley—who recently lobbied the Illinois legislature for $180 million for Chicago’s financially strapped school system, one of the public services starved by diverted TIF tax revenue —is reportedly seeking the legislature’s permission to extend the life of the Central Loop TIF by another 12 years.

Oodles of Jobs, Gobs Less CO2

February 14, 2008

It’s time for America to use existing, garden-variety tax breaks to create oodles of jobs and eliminate gobs of greenhouse gasses. It’s time we attach Climate Quality Standards to economic development subsidies such as property tax abatements, Industrial Revenue Bonds, and investment tax credits.

Estimates vary, but buildings generate about a third of greenhouse gasses in the U.S. The U.S. Green Building Council, whose LEED standards are the most widely used system for improving buildings’ efficiency, has LEED-EB, its certification for Existing Buildings.

As the New York Times recently reported, commercial building owners can recoup the cost (via energy savings) of retrofitting to LEED-EB standards IN JUST 10 TO 30 MONTHS! Adobe recouped its costs in less than 10 months, the Times reports, and now gives tours. (A speaker at the recent New Partners for Smart Growth conference said Harvard claims a higher ROI on its physical-plant efficiency efforts than on its endowment!)

Given this reality, it’s time for a new leg on our Good Jobs First Subsidy Accountability “stool.” Every local and state legislator and executive ought to be applying Climate Quality Standards such as LEED-EB to any company that wants to keep common economic development subsidies. The same principle using LEED standards for new construction should apply to all future deals.

Oodles of jobs as owners of existing buildings scramble to comply and save their giveaways. Gobs less CO2 as America’s physical plant becomes more efficient.

Can you say “low-hanging policy fruit?”