Comments on: Pathological Community Development, Paid For By You, Me, and Me Again

By: Mary Chism

Mary Chism — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 20:11:25 +0000

Doug, Tom took you up on your excellent suggestion to “attack the Chemical Building” next. Check out:
http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/10/where-did-that-money-go-again.html

By: David Stokes

David Stokes — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:46:31 +0000

If the trash fee was a switch to a user fee offset by a decline in the tax levels previously used to fund trash pick-up, then Mr. Duckworth’s point would stand and nobody here would complain about it. But it is not a transfer, it is just a new fee imposed while maintaining the prior taxes at the same level. That is hardly above reproach…

By: Thomas Duda

Thomas Duda — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:04:24 +0000

Douglas,

Thank you for your comment. I will remind you that “The views expressed by each contributor to this blog are those of that contributor alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Show-Me Institute.”

My concern about the trash user fee is that its enforcement rests in a coercive government mandate. I have a major problem with the fee, as its imposition does not yield a concomitant reduction in taxes. We are still paying taxes that formerly funded the Refuse Division, and now we are forced to pay the City for trash service as well.

Is this a libertarian blog? I thought this was a blog about “News and Views on Missouri Public Policy.”

I respect and admire those who “took the downtown rehab plunge.”

The crux of my critique stands directed at local government actors, who do not possess the proper mechanisms to price subsidies for development projects.

I invite you to share evidence of how TIF incidence in “distressed areas” benefits said areas. $100 million + says it doesn’t.

By: Douglas Duckworth

Douglas Duckworth — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:13:22 +0000

And why do we have someone being upset about paying user fees on a libertarian blog?

By: Douglas Duckworth

Douglas Duckworth — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:09:54 +0000

Are you kidding me? Why don’t you libertarians eliminate TIF abuse in affluent suburban ares before you knock financial mechanisms targeting distressed areas! Downtown was blighted since the 1970’s — for good reason. Even back then we had over 1,000,0000 square feet in vacant office space. Yes, we have issues in St. Louis City with TIF abuse, however the Syndicate Trust rehab wasn’t for Walgreen’s, Schnuck’s, or any large corporation. This was a building that was almost torn down by City Hall but instead rehabbed by Craig Heller, a local entrepreneur who took the downtown rehab plunge before almost anyone else. If Rex did that in 1998 then perhaps he would have standing to criticize those who took the highest risk before most others. How about you guys complain about STL Centre’s TIF bond under Slay or the Century Garage instead and leave the Syndicate alone? Will you attack the Chemical Building or Arcade next?

By: Dave Roland

Dave Roland — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:22:32 +0000

@Nancy – Or, y’know, we could scrap the whole idea of targeted tax benefits and instead create an inviting business climate by reducing the overall tax rate and decreasing the amount of red tape a business must cut through in order to open up shop.

By: Nancy Thompson

Nancy Thompson — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:35:03 +0000

By now we should realize that in the face of overwhelming economic odds, such as those facing the core of a non-growing area that refuses to face sprawl, both the TIF process and even tax credits for historic preservation are helpless. Unless the building is a site of considerable historic significance, those tax credits should be awarded only when there is demand for the space.

By: Thomas Duda

Thomas Duda — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:02:40 +0000

Such delightful externalities, those aesthetics!

By: Keith Marquard

Keith Marquard — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:04:19 +0000

Socialize that risk and privatize the profits. It’s a well known business model here in Missouri.

By: Christine Harbin

Christine Harbin — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:57:25 +0000

But it’s so aesthetically pleasing!