Duckworth,
You are incoherent. it’s like…you just make assertions, without any evidence to support.

Why are these buildings not worth public finance? Do such irreplaceable structures not give our City a comparative advantage over others, and suburbia, thus calling an imperative if we hope to compete? Tiebout suggested decentralization in government with each offering different levels of service and corresponding taxes. With fragmentation in St. Louis County, and no regional land use controls that’s our environment. Thereby the City, if it seeks to compete, should use whatever means to preserve those resources which makes it unique. Reagan said vote with your feet. Why do you criticize city government which tries to get them back?

We can’t forget that though City and State government may have mismanaged some funds, that doesn’t compare to the casino gambling which brought down our economy destroying trillions in wealth. I would rather have subsidy and regulation, dead-weight losses yes, as opposed to wild west capitalism where we ignore our cities and sacrifice working class jobs for trickle down ideology. Wages remain stagnant since the destruction of unions yet productivity remains high. The fruits of ones labor isn’t being justly compensated. CEO compensation as risen several orders of magnitude. It’s clear who benefits from deregulation.

Keep up the blogging. It certainly provides a good debate.

I invite you to visit showmeliving.org/taxcredits for a reality check.

I also implore you to please stop conflating “[t]he views expressed by each contributor to this blog” with the views of others. (Consider information available at the above link, specifically a person who has received the historic preservation tax credit.)

Finally, I am more than happy to say that I oppose using the income tax to subsidize spending on historic preservation. If you want preservation, then I recommend that you find a better mechanism for funding it.

“In fact, recipients of historic preservation tax credits need not even acknowledge the historic significance of their taxpayer-supported property on site, such as in the form of a plaque.”

What? Individual property and districts are listed with the National Parks Service. Moreover, the majority of buildings in our City do actually have plaques. Have you visited Benton Park, Soulard, Lafayette Square, or Cherokee for the last 10-25 years? Quite a many buildings downtown have plaques too. Districts also require the consent of those who would be living within it’s proposed boundaries. You’re saying the process isn’t democratic or disclosed? I fail to see that considering the amount of scrutiny and opportunity for protest. If owners of single sites say no then the nomination does not occur. If a majority of the district object it does not happen. This isn’t some back-room graft orgy and you know that.

If you are suggesting that every building in our City which received subsidy have a sign then why don’t you guys first work on every suburban building that got an FHA/VA/HUD loan? Well you would be trying forever since the Federal Government essentially created the modern mortgage and spurred suburban homeownership! It’s entirely ironic to say that historic preservation reduces economic freedom when decades of irrational free choice and collusion essentially gutted our cities for suburban sprawl. We’re using these credits in order to rebuild what the private sector itself won’t deliver.

It’s completely disingenuous to argue against the Syndicate. That building might have higher occupancy if the irrational private actors didn’t nearly push us into economic oblivion by betting against the housing market knowing it would crash while ensuring those bets with AIG. I admit that Slay killed Heller’s plans to expand so perhaps there’s a good example of government picking winners and losers. Maybe Rex could ask Slay to not interfere with the private sector so much? Or at least minimize government interference to the extend that it benefits Rex’s charter school agenda and subjective ethics?