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.

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?

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.

Eliminate special interestgiveaways abatements and lower property tax rates for all!