Compare and Contrast: LRA and LCRA
I attended my first Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA) board meeting in Saint Louis yesterday. I couldn’t help but notice stark similarities and differences between the LCRA and the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) board.
One stark difference is the amount of information that each board expects from the petitioners. When presenting before the LRA board, an individual has to demonstrate financial ability and provide the written endorsement of an alderperson, as contributors to Show-Me Daily have communicated previously. When presenting before the LCRA board, apparently, the presenter provides neither. He only has to cite the dollar amount that the developer is spending on the project, as well as the projected number of jobs that will be created.
As a related point of contrast, committee members of the LRA board pose probing questions to petitioners, whereas those of the LCRA members ask few, if any.
As a point of similarity, both the LRA and the LCRA promote policies that remove properties from the tax base and therefore reduce the amount of property tax revenue received by the city. Each has a different way to accomplish this, however — the LRA board denies proposals from individuals to buy properties that are withheld by the city, and the LCRA board approves proposals from private corporate developers to abate property taxes.
I encourage you to compare the number of suits in the first photo below to the number in the second photo.
To me, it begs the following question: Whom is Saint Louis City government serving: taxpaying individuals or corporate developers?
Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA) Meeting, August 24, 2010
Photo Credit: Thomas Duda
Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) Meeting, June 30, 2010
Photo Credit: Thomas Duda
Oh. Snap.
Eliminate special interest
giveawaysabatements and lower property tax rates for all!Comment by Thomas Duda — August 25, 2010 @ 6:07 p.m.
Btw, you are really starting to show your “ultra conservative” colors, Chrissy.
Comment by Thomas Duda — August 26, 2010 @ 9:17 a.m.
Will low-income people be allowed to buy LRA property if they wear suits?
Comment by ZOMG — August 26, 2010 @ 1:11 p.m.
ZOMG, who said people who want to buy LRA property are “low-income?”
Comment by Thomas Duda — August 26, 2010 @ 1:17 p.m.
@Tom: Good point. Let me rephrase my question. If the corporate developers at LCRA meetings don’t wear suits, will they continue get handouts?
Comment by ZOMG — August 26, 2010 @ 2:20 p.m.
That’s the question. We should contact a few and ask if they wouldn’t mind participating in a controlled experiment: Each promises to “invest” the same amount in a building, yielding the same number and type of “jobs.” One wears a suit. The other wears a polo shirt and jeans. LCRA just might choose to endorse a 10-year tax abatement for the former and a 5-year tax abatement for the latter…
The only problem is what developer would ever risk 5 years of tax benefits in the pursuit of hard data for our experiment?
This is the difficulty with economics: There’s really no way to control reality. Instead, all we can do is observe and extrapolate. My money’s always gonna be on the suits.
Comment by Thomas Duda — August 26, 2010 @ 2:35 p.m.
Why doesn’t Rex return the $300,000 in Historic Tax Credits which he received for his building on North Union, that houses his lobbying firm Pelopidas, in order to purchase some LRA/LCRA properties? I mean, you know, someone of high means criticizing a greedy lazy government should at least lead by example and not selfish interest, right?
Comment by Douglas Duckworth — August 27, 2010 @ 3:20 a.m.
“both the LRA and the LCRA promote policies that remove properties from the tax base and therefore reduce the amount of property tax revenue received by the city”
Are you a drunken vagrant? The LRA does not remove properties from the tax “base,” correct term being tax yield. The LRA receives properties through tax delinquency. Though the LRA has egregious management problems, it is not the Grinch bureaucrat which stole tax revenuve from the City. Perhaps we should scrutinize billionaire’s who attack governance yet exploit the public dole? Could Rex talk to the Koch’s about that?
Comment by Douglas Duckworth — August 27, 2010 @ 3:27 a.m.
@Douglas Duckworth: To clarify, Christine Harbin wrote this post, not Rex Sinquefield, the co-founder of the Show-Me Institute. The point isn’t that a private buyer should be purchasing vacant LRA property just so that a private individual can land bank instead of a public institution. The point is a public institution shouldn’t be barring private individuals from purchasing vacant land who want to put it to productive use.
You may be right on the point that the LRA does not technically remove properties from the tax base — because the agency usually acquires properties that are tax delinquent. Your point is a technicality.
LRA does, in two ways, carve out sections of the city tax base. First, the LRA sometimes purchases property at tax sales, meaning that it is out-bidding a private, would-be buyer. In those instances, the LRA is removing properties from the tax base, because if the private buyer had been successful in his or her bid, that buyer would end up paying property taxes.
Second, by denying private buyers the ability to purchase property, the LRA is not “removing” property from the tax base — it is intentionally keeping property from returning to private owners. This is technically different from removing property from the tax base, but it has the same result.
While I can’t speak for Chrissy, I will admit that I frequently am a drunken vagrant. It’s the only way to get through such depressing public meetings.
Comment by Audrey — August 27, 2010 @ 7:03 a.m.