Chauncey's TIF

Written June 8, 2015, 7:00 p.m.; posted (with preface, and link to video of entire Council session), June 13, 2015, 5:15 p.m.

I know there's a lot of controversy about this. . . . These projects are simply not possible without [TIFs]. It's a political decision whether it's a good idea or not.

-- Marc Moen, Chauncey developer, City Council Hearing, June 8, 2015 [starting at 2:08:45 on City Channel 4's video, below]

Preface

This blog essay is a "for the record" preservation of the text of my remarks before the Iowa City Council on June 8, 2015. The business before the Council involved its approval of the zoning and financial details of a proposed 15-story building on land owned by the City on the eastern border of the downtown district. Public comments from the business community tended to support the project; comments from those associated with a church across the street, and those speaking for the poor and working poor of Iowa City tended to oppose the project. [The photo gives some sense of the contrast -- for good or for ill -- between the proposed building's height and that of the surrounding community.]

My remarks focused on the propriety of TIFs in general -- a subject I have written about in this blog on over 40 occasions. "TIFs: Links to Blog Essays." The Council meeting, with its opportunity for public comment, seemed an appropriate occasion to outline briefly some of the categories of reasons why TIFs are a bad idea -- something I had never before directly presented to the Council members.

Because that was my primary purpose, because even partial discussion of the TIF issues would have required a half-hour to hour, and because I had been informed public comments were limited to five minutes (and it turned out to be a four-minute limit), the remarks were limited to a quick itemization of a sampling of TIF topics with neither elaboration of the TIF issues nor even the barest mention of non-TIF issues.

Therefore, a fuller record requires revelation in this blog essay of some of my thinking about the Chauncey project generally.

There are a number of issues with regard to such a project. The TIF-related issues are such things as use of public money, taxpayers' money, to assist a for-profit, private venture -- especially one providing expensive condo housing for the wealthy in a booming downtown area. These are the issues as to which my position has been clear.

Other issues involve the project itself -- regardless of how it is going to be financed: (1) with exclusively private funds (capitalism), (2) a mix of public and private funds (corporatism), or (3) exclusively public funds (socialism). Those issues include such things as location, compatibility with the neighborhood and any city plan, its height, "green" construction, adequate parking, impact on traffic and safety, removal of historic structures to make way for the new, a pleasing aesthetic quality and artistic design, contribution to the city's great need for low income housing, and similar matters.

Some may assume I am opposed to all such downtown development. They would be wrong.

In 2009 there was local debate about where to locate a new Hancher auditorium to replace the one constructed on the Iowa River bank and destroyed by flood. The downtown area was one option. (Since then, large structures -- a student physical recreation facility, music building, art museum -- have been, or will be, located downtown. And the replacement Hancher is being built only a short distance up the river bank from where the former one flooded.)

In discussing the downtown Hancher option, I noted that downtown Iowa City was laid out in 1839 with the same spaces and streets it has today, and I wrote:

Iowa's 99 counties, and their "capitals," were located to serve an agricultural population -- with no farm more than a day's horse and buggy round trip ride along dirt roads to a county seat, with its markets, and entertainment for that weekly shopping "trip to town." . . .

We didn't have "malls" in the 1930s, but downtown Iowa City provided much the same function, with drug and hardware stores (for farm equipment and supplies), Sears, Wards, J.C. Penney, five movie theaters, barber shops for the weekly shave and haircut, grocery stores, and so forth. There were no parking meters or parking garages, and no need for them. There was still the occasional horse, and not that many automobiles.

Coralville's Coral Ridge Mall, and the Tanger Outlets west on I-80, provide those functions for most shoppers today. . . . The former was soon doing a $100 million dollar a year business. It offered free, easy access parking, and a cluster of stores, restaurants and entertainment (including a childrens' museum) to satisfy a variety of needs and desires in one place (not to mention the additional dozens of facilities nearby).

Today that 1839 county seat of Iowa City, originally designed for less than 1000 people, has an 2008 estimated population of about 68,000 -- and is the principal city in its own Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) of nearly 150,000.

Hancher - Part I," September 14, 2009.

So what did I then think we should do with Iowa City's downtown?

Let me say at the outset that I tend to agree with what I gather is the vision of downtown business persons such as Mark Moen and restaurant genius Jim Mondanaro. That is, Iowa City as laid out in 1839 cannot be turned into a 21st Century Coral Ridge Mall and it's self-defeating to try. . . . What it should aspire to be is a small, very livable, quasi-residential, quaint, walkable, center of entertainment and restaurants (along with the minimal number of banks, grocery stores, and other businesses to sustain that resident population). We may differ about the value of the number of scofflaw bar owners encouraging undergraduates' illegal binge drinking, I don't know. Frankly, I think that phenomenon detracts from, rather than supports, their vision. But we basically agree about the rest of it. And putting Hancher downtown is consistent with that vision -- it's just 170 years too late.

Aesthetically I prefer natural settings for entertainment venues. . . . But it would be a much closer case for me if it were 170 years ago, and we were just now laying out Iowa City.

Hancher - Part V," September 18, 2009.

Oh, if I was doing it I might put the Chauncey building elsewhere -- say, in the area the Council wants to redevelop south of Burlington.

I might have fewer floors. Marc Moen, quoted at the top of this blog essay, may or may not be right in saying that, "These projects are simply not possible without [TIFs]." But whatever these projects require financially, there are certainly other, somewhat more modest, but equally aesthetically pleasing, green projects that would be "possible without [TIFs]."

My downtown vision involves not just "affordable," $200,000 condos (five are planned for the Chauncey), but a much greater availability of low income housing mixed with the proposed (and already existing condo units selling for multiples of that price). I'd even be willing to support the idea of City-owned housing for the poor and working poor in the downtown area. After all, that goal, along with redevelopment of blighted urban areas (which the downtown definitely is not) was the original idea and purpose of TIF funding.

And I would not have demolished the Civil War homes, and the Unitarian Church (which is coming). Because when I propose, above, a "quasi-residential, quaint" downtown I'm thinking of the charm that attracts Americans to some European communities (think Bruges, Belgium, pictured here). Even Manhattan has its Nineteenth Century buildings among its skyscrapers. If we really want to attract residents and visitors to Iowa City's downtown, we too need to preserve among the glass and steel what little charming history we still have left, while also building vertically. [Bruges photo credit: Petrophoto.net]

But those are the details if I was doing it; and I'm not doing it. Moen and the City Council are. I just wanted to make clear that I have for some time shared the general vision of Mark Moen -- whom I greatly admire and appreciate for his patience, aesthetic creativity' and civic commitment -- the City Council, and their staff.

Marc Moen put it right about TIFs in his characteristically soft spoken presentation to the Council, as I've quoted at the top of this blog essay: "It's a political decision whether it's a good idea or not." It is a political decision. I admire capitalists who reject Congressional earmarks and tax breaks, and city councils' TIFs. (As another developer from another city put his attitude about TIFs to me, "I pay my taxes.") But so long as the City Council has made the political decision to give away taxpayers' money to developers, as they have, I would no more fault Marc Moen for accepting it than I would fault him for taking a perfectly legal tax deduction that Congress has unwisely made available to him in the Internal Revenue Code.

My primary argument is with the politicians, rather than the recipients of government largess, for all the reasons an I have repeatedly laid out over the past decade, and are severely truncated in the brief summary below.
_______________
Iowa City City Council meetings are cablecast, videotaped, and available for streaming from the City's cable channel on the Mediacom cable system, "City Channel 4." The Chauncey discussion during the June 8, 2015, meeting is available for streaming in its entirety: 2 hours 52 minutes. Video of the statement, below, appears from 01:09:58 to 01:14:42. Special City Council Meeting, Item 2, Development Agreement [Chauncey]," City Channel 4, June 8, 2015.

Here is KGAN-TV's report of the hearing on their June 8, 2015, 10:00 p.m. news, which includes a brief clip from the statement, below:



Statement of Nicholas Johnson
Regarding TIF Funding of the Chauncey Building
City of Iowa City City Council
Iowa City, Iowa
June 8, 2015
Mr. Mayor, and Members of the Iowa City City Council:

Are there benefits to a given TIF? One would certainly hope so.

But benefit-cost analysis requires we examine the harms as well.

Consider an organization of teenage drug dealers. It provides them experience working in teams, providing customer service, the math challenges in weighing drugs, calculating prices, and making change, designing a business plan.

But no one here this evening would say, “Gee, I guess drug rings really are good for kids.” And certainly no one would propose we support their business with taxpayers’ money.

TIFs, like teenage drug rings, are a really bad idea.

Here’s a summary; some of the reasons why.

Corporatism. Putting taxpayers’ money into private, for-profit enterprises is seldom a good idea regardless of how it’s done. In Italy during WW II it was called fascism. In Washington it involves billions of dollars, in Des Moines hundreds of millions, in Iowa City it’s called TIFs.

Ideological hypocrisy. How can those supporting free private enterprise, capitalism, and marketplace forces, who think “government is the problem” and want it “off their back,” justify taking money from the public collection plate?

Anti-democratic. We’ve got it backwards. There are legitimate, traditional government expenditures for things like roads and bridges, parks, public schools and libraries, or jails. Democracy dictates that governments often need voters’ approval of bonds for these legitimate government projects. Yet City Councils can give our money to their friends’ private projects on a whim – even over the opposition of taxpayers. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Opportunity costs. Spending money on one thing costs the lost opportunity to spend it elsewhere. Johnson County Supervisor Rod Sullivan once found a diversion of $700 million of property off the tax rolls. As a result, either we pay more taxes or schools and neighboring communities have to cut needed programs.

Unfairness to competitors. TIFs tilt the playing field. They unfairly upset a free market, punishing honest competitors and benefitting no one except the TIF recipient.

Risky business. Money’s always available for good deals. If an entrepreneur, family, friends, investors, venture capitalists, and banks aren’t willing to fund a project, maybe taxpayers shouldn’t either.

TIFs are unnecessary. The Corridor is one of the fastest growing, lowest unemployment areas of Iowa. We already have what businesses want: skilled labor, transportation and communication infrastructure, quality education, cultural attractions and outdoor recreation. If that’s not enough we don’t need them.

The subsidy-grantors' record is not great. Elected officials are more skilled at keeping contributors and constituents happy than at evaluating taxpayer-funded business proposals. TIFed projects have gone belly up, missed deadlines, and new jobs goals. And TIFs in Iowa have more lenient provisions, and less oversight, than in most other states.

“Need” is unknowable. Many projects will go ahead without subsidy. If tax breaks are available, of course developers will say they need them. Maybe this is blackmail. Maybe they need to look harder for funding. Maybe they need to cut back on the project. There’s no way to know.

There’s more. But that’s all I have time for.

# # #

TIFs -- Chauncey -- For the Record

May 25, 2015

Replacing Council Members Only Solution

TIF is intended to be used as incentive to encourage development of projects that benefit the community but for which the return carries sufficient risk to discourage investment. Construction of luxury housing, a hotel and entertainment venues between an affluent neighborhood and a thriving downtown with a steady stream of visitors is not a risky proposition.

-- Lauren Lyon (from op ed column below)

Since the beginning of this blog ten years ago, TIFs (tax breaks and gifts of taxpayers' money from the Iowa City City Council to wealthy developers) have been the subject of over 40 blog essays. "TIFs: Links to Blog Essays." They have itemized and illustrated over a dozen categories of reasons why TIFs are a bad idea -- any one of which should be reason enough to stop using them. No pro-TIF public official has ever taken up my challenge to demonstrate why none of those categories is a reasonable basis for concern. Accordingly, there is no reason why this blog essay should repeat those arguments once again.

Why? Because I ultimately came to the conclusion that, while this seemed to be an instance in which the pen (or a computer keyboard) is not mightier than the sword, it might be one in which the ballot box might prove mightier than the sword of special interest. A City Council election is coming up this fall. Replacing some of the "socialism for the rich and free private enterprise for the poor" councilors may be a solution, if only the public could become informed and aroused. [Photo credit: Iowa City Press-Citizen.]

A current (2015) case of this abuse, which appears to be sliding down the Council's greased skids as I write, involves a project called "The Chauncey." Although I am not going to describe and analyze it here, it does seem to me important enough to warrant reproducing, "For the Record," some of the current local writing on the subject.

N.J., May 25, 2015
Contents
Opposition
Lauren Lyon, "Church rezoning objects to Chauncey rezoning," April 27, 2015

Henry Madden, "Council Should Issue New RFP for College/Gilbert Site," April 30, 2015

Jon Fogarty, "Financial errors in Chauncey plan, options being ignored," May 20, 2015

Mary Gravitt, "Residents should turn out for Chauncey hearing," May 19, 2015

Support
Marc Moen, Steve Rohrbach and Mike Hahn, "Setting facts straight on Chauncey development," May 9, 2015 [a response to Henry Madden, above]

Wallace and Karen Chappell, "Council should approve Chauncey," May 19, 2015
____________________
" Church rezoning objects to Chauncey rezoning

Lauren Lyon

Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 28, 2015 [online 12:28 p.m. CDT April 27, 2015]
On Thursday, Trinity Episcopal Church filed a formal objection to the city of Iowa City’s application for unlimited density zoning for the proposed location of the controversial Chauncey tower project.

The controversy over rezoning the land at the corner of College and Gilbert streets could be cast as a David and Goliath story, or a confrontation between naïve idealism and worldly sophistication. Neither of those characterizations is correct.

For the past 18 months, Trinity Episcopal Church has pointed toward the shortage of parking likely to result from the construction of the Chauncey on that corner, the project for which the proposed zoning change will make way. Parking restrictions will have a direct impact on parishioners’ and guests’ ability to participate in church activities seven days a week. Trinity has also noted the obstruction of light to the church building that the 15-story Chauncey will cause. Comments by commissioners at the Zoning and Planning Commission meeting April 16 suggested that they might finally be taking seriously the issue of parking related to the unlimited density that the change to CB-10 will allow.

Apart from parking and the aesthetic impact on the church building, Trinity parishioners have consistently raised important issues related to the use of public funds and city owned land. The $14.2 million in incentives to be provided to the Moen Group for construction of the Chauncey includes $12.1 million in tax increment financing. TIF is intended to be used as incentive to encourage development of projects that benefit the community but for which the return carries sufficient risk to discourage investment. Construction of luxury housing, a hotel and entertainment venues between an affluent neighborhood and a thriving downtown with a steady stream of visitors is not a risky proposition.

Inclusion of affordable housing in a project is an element of qualification for TIF. The city of Iowa City proposes to spend $1 million in HUD funds to purchase five units in the Chauncey to be designated for low-income residents. This proposal distorts the meaning of affordable housing in a cynical manner to justify what is already a questionable use of public funds. The project also incorporates a purchase of land by the developer from the City for $2.1 million, the proceeds of which will be contributed by the city to the project’s financing.

It was noted at the April 16 meeting that the city elected not use the Good Neighbor Program protocol, which is “strongly encouraged in most instances” by its own department of Planning and Community Development. The program brochure, which is posted on the city’s website encourages “proactive dialogue between property owners, developers and neighbors that may help identify and resolve issues.” It goes on to say “answering neighbors’ questions and hearing their concerns or suggestions may provide the opportunity to developers/applicants to address concerns or objections before the project is reviewed in a public forum.”

To have the skill, resources and political influence to make one’s mark on the built environment of a city is an extraordinary form of power. It can change the character of entire neighborhoods and shape their future for decades, if not centuries. Zoning regulations provide an essential counterweight to that power by allowing the citizens and organizations within affected communities to ask questions, pose challenges and offer alternatives.

Trinity Episcopal Church has never objected to the commercial development of the property in question. The congregation welcomes it and remains open and willing to take part in the process of discussion and decision-making about the specific nature of that development. The city and its agencies have not entered fully into that process.

The Rev. Lauren Lyon is rector at Trinity Episcopal Church, 320 E. College St. in Iowa City. She can be reached at llyon@trinityic.org.

____________________
Council should issue new RFP for College/Gilbert site

Henry Madden

Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 30, 2015
In contrast to the Press-Citizen's editorial, "Council should approve Chauncey" (April 25), I would like to state many reasons why the council should not approve the Chauncey and should restart the process for designing a building for that College and Gilbert site and this time do it above board.

1. The council misled the public from the beginning. The city's Comprehensive Plan restricted the building height to 75 feet. Some on the council indicated to developer Marc Moen that they wanted a very tall building and calculated that they could easily change the zoning restrictions. If they had been fair to all developers, they would have stated in their request for proposal that they preferred 15 to 20 stories.

2. The city stated in the RFP that it favored workforce housing. This led many developers to incorporate as many affordable units as possible to receive the contract. One proposal designed 153 workforce units while Moen's design listed 13. Was there prior information passed to Moen that this was not important?

3. The council indicated its pre-established selection of Moen's Chauncey when councilor Susan Mims stated at the January 2013 council meeting, "I see no reason for further discussion. I was for the Chauncey from the beginning."

4. Upon reviewing the comparative matrix developed by the city's consultant, it becomes clear that the Chauncey was not the most financially advantageous choice for the city. By "financially advantageous," I mean the net present value of the TIF money invested by the city and the tax payback the city would receive. These numbers should have been exposed to the citizens but were not mentioned because (former) councilor Connie Champion spoke up after Mims with, "Yes, I agree. Let's not get into a numbers game."

5. The City Council appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a change to the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan to allow the addition of three blocks, including the block where the Chauncey would be located, to allow the Chauncey but was denied. It voted to override the P&Z denial but, by law, the vote required a super-majority and two councilors voted no. It then appealed to P&Z for a spot zoning change to the College/Gilbert site, which would negate the very reason for the transitional area, which the city's Comprehensive Plan incorporated. The P&Z again refused to allow the change.

6. Immediately after the zoning rejection, two members of the P&Z commission, volunteer citizens, were denied reappointment. These were competent long-term members.

7. In obvious ignorance of Federal Aviation Administration rules, the council learned that 20 stories would violate the agency's rules. Why didn't the city investigate, as part of their matrix, the present regulations before voting — an indication of poor planning.

8. In an age of environmental concern, one would think that our council should be concerned with energy efficiency. One developer submitted a design with platinum LEED certification and a "net zero" energy use. We could have had one of the first "net zero" buildings in America and have had national publicity.

9. Many citizens — including Trinity Church, North Side and College Green neighborhood residents, and New Pioneer Co-op members — objected to the high-rise building and the change of the zoning, but were ignored.

10. Just several months ago, the City Council, for some reason, realized that Chauncey did not have any workforce housing so it agreed to buy five units for $1 million — $200,000 per unit. Is that affordable workforce housing?

I believe the only way to correct this elite, unfair, confused and ill-conceived project is to start all over and tell prospective developers specifically what the people of Iowa City want.

Henry Madden is an Iowa City resident.

____________________
" Financial errors in Chauncey plan, options being ignored

Jon Fogarty

Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 20, 2015, p. A13 [online 2:56 p.m. CDT May 19, 2015]
Recently, The Chauncey developers wrote an opinion piece outlining the financial benefits for the project. However, don’t listen to what they say, look at what their numbers show. The city is about to take a giant bet on a financially risky project that will supplant growth, has polarized the community, placed a community of faith under stress, and most troubling, left those needing workforce housing out in the cold. Our city deserves and can do better.

This project is a bad deal for taxpayers. The approved TIF totals $14.1 million on a total budget of $49 million. That amount includes a $2.1 million refund of the purchase price of the land. For that amount of public assistance, the city could forgo the loan, take 30 percent equity in the building and get 70 units that can be sold as means-tested workforce housing for middle class families.

Instead, the city will borrow that money, loan it to the Moen Group and let them pay it back in 20 to 25 years out of their property taxes. This process robs the city, county and the school district of revenue from this property and turns what would otherwise be property taxes it into equity for the Moen Group. If this project cannot fully obtain private sector financing, then it is fiscally bankrupt by design.

Furthermore, this project makes a mockery of the request for proposals requirement for workforce housing. At present, the current plan seems to be using $1 million in HUD funds to buy five units in the building for such housing. To me and most people I talk to, this fails the spirit and letter of the original RFP and goes into the territory of moral bankruptcy. Multiple proposals represented a real opportunity to enhance work force housing options for working families in our downtown.

For example, George Sherman Associates, proposed a 13-story building that specified 132 workforce housing units. However, Councilor Connie Champion dismissed those units as “just student housing” and Councilor Susan Mims echoed that remark. Ryan, a 75-year-old firm having constructed hundreds of buildings across the U.S., presented a five-story building containing 60 workforce housing units. This building would have satisfied the community’s desire for a legitimate transition zone between downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods as well as Trinity Episcopal Church.

In short, this project was not chosen based on merit, the fiscal numbers or its alignment with the RFP. Watching the deliberations, Jim Throgmorton seems to be the only councilor who read the nine pages of data supplied by city planning staff since he asked the only question referencing the data. If anything, it appears to have been chosen based on personal relationships, the lowest level of RFP satisfaction and the greatest amount of public assistance.

These are just two flaws of The Chauncey. We could describe many more, but those problems alone are enough to reject this project. There are many other options for the corner of College and Gilbert that are being ignored.

It’s time to admit that many mistakes are being made and that we need to start over. This is a highly desirable site, located between our downtown and our historic neighborhoods. There is no need to subsidize development with public money and with city ownership of all but the MidAmerican electrical substation, the city can dictate every aspect of development. By listening to concerns, opening up the process and setting forth clear guidelines that will be followed, our community can get a project that our entire city can support.

Jon Fogarty is co-chair of Iowa Coalition Against the Shadow. He lives in Iowa City.

____________________
" Residents should turn out for Chauncey hearing

Mary Gravitt

Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 19, 2015, p. A7 [online 2:04 p.m. CDT May 18, 2015]
Iowa City Council scheduled May 19 for the Chauncey rezoning. I urge the community to turn out in force with their voter registration card in hand, and expect the following:

•The agenda will be purposely overloaded.

•Members of council will appear to be listening, but only three actually are.

•Do not plead on moral ground — politicians have no morals.

•Corruption is the norm in Third World contexts and content such as skyscrapers, so beware of done deals, like pipe being already shipped.

•If the meeting starts at 7 p.m. and will end at 11 p.m. so as to wear out those wanting to testify.

•Your charter right to five minutes to speak will be cut down to three, so practice you delivery.

Finally: At the last U.S. Census, Iowa City residents numbered 68,000; the city council numbers seven; three are up for re-election. The odds are in the peoples’ favor. And this is what democracy looks like Iowa City.

My delivery is this: The Chauncey because of its height will cast a shadow over Gilbert Street, which a main thoroughfare, and cause the street to ice over in winter. I have observed this phenomenon by walking down Linn Street where a single-story building housing a law firm casts its shadow like a groundhog, icing up the adjoined sidewalk. If the shadow of a one-story building can do this to an entire sidewalk, what will 15 stories do to a highway?

Mary Gravitt

____________________

Support
" Setting facts straight on Chauncey development

Marc Moen, Steve Rohrbach and Mike Hahn

Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 9, 2015, p. A9 [online 12:44 p.m. CDT May 8, 2015]
The Chauncey Development Team welcomes honest, fact-based discussion of the proposed development at the corner of College and Gilbert streets. Facts do matter, however, and we feel compelled to respond to the April 30 opinion by Henry Madden, which is largely innuendo, erroneous information and unfounded claims of inside information from which he concludes the city’s process was not “above board.”

In response, we provide the following factual information:

•Madden erroneously claims the City Council misled the public on the scale of the development it was requesting in the Request For Proposals. In fact, the city’s Aug. 31, 2012, RFP specifically sought developers for “an urban, downtown-density building” and states “it is anticipated CB-10 (Central Business District) zoning will be requested.” (City RFP, pp. 3,11)

•Madden’s suggestion that “prior information” was provided to developer Marc Moen regarding workforce housing has no basis in fact. In fact, the information on workforce housing was provided through the city’s RFP (City RPF, p. 10).

•Madden claims there was a “pre-established” council selection of the Chauncey. In fact, the Chauncey proposal was made known to council only through the submission process established in the city’s RFP. There was no communication with council members before submitting our proposal, and we had no idea which proposal any member of the council might prefer.

•Madden asserts that TIF numbers “should have been exposed to the citizens.” In fact, not only were the numbers made public, they showed that the biggest benefit to the city was from the Chauncey project. The numbers were included in the City Council packet before selection of the preferred developer.

•Madden mistakenly claims the city has engaged in spot zoning. In fact, the Gilbert/College site already is identified as general commercial in the current comprehensive plan (IC2030 Comprehensive Plan). The CB-10 zoning request is consistent with that plan.

•Madden claims that immediately after P&Z voted on the zoning application, two members of the P&Z commission were denied reappointment. In fact, council appointments to P&Z were made before P&Z’s vote on the city’s rezoning request at which time only oneof the commissioners had applied for reappointment.

•Madden incorrectly claims the City Council was ignorant of the Federal Aviation Administration Rules. In fact, the city’s RFP specifically calls out the airport regulations and it was well known to everyone involved that an FAA variance was required, whether 15 or 20 stories. (City RFP, p. 11)

•Madden suggests that council is not concerned with energy efficiency. In fact, the Chauncey’s sustainability was discussed during the selection process and has been the subject of negotiations since Chauncey was selected.

•Contrary to Madden’s claim, concerns voiced by Trinity Church and others about height were not ignored. Chauncey’s reduction to 15 stories was in direct response to these concerns.

•Madden’s suggestion that New Pioneer Co-op was opposed to the height is belied by the fact that New Pioneer Co-op signed letters of intent to occupy the main floor on multiple projects requiring CB-10 zoning, including a 13-story building and an 18-story glass building. Moreover, the Chauncey design team has been respectful of the corner and surrounding properties. Chauncey is only four stories at the College/Gilbert corner (14 feet shorter than would be allowed under CB-5 zoning) with major step backs to the taller section of the building beginning (at level 5 the building steps back 70 feet from Gilbert Street and 102 feet from College Street). This assures that the shadow effect on Trinity Church is no greater than a CB-5 building.

•Workforce housing has been included since the beginning of the Chauncey project and has received careful attention throughout negotiations on the development agreement. Madden’s suggestion to the contrary is simply not true.

•Madden proposes the city discard all the work done in the last 2½ years and start over. This is after the development team has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, and after city staff, third-party consultants, and City Council have devoted an enormous amount of time to the development of the College/Gilbert site.

Madden’s proposal would have a devastating impact on any developer ever trusting the city on a development project in the future. It would be irresponsible for the city to follow Madden’s advice.

Marc Moen is a member of The Chauncey, L.L.C., the developer on the project; Steve Rohrbach is president of Rohrbach Associates, P.C., the architect of the proposed Chauncey; and Mike Hahn is president of McComas-Lacina Construction, L.C., the general contractor on the proposed Chauncey.

____________________
" Council should approve Chauncey

Wallace and Karen Chappell

Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 19, 2015, p. A7 [online 2:03 p.m. CDT May 18, 2015]
We urge the City Council of Iowa City to continue its support of the Chauncey, as proposed by the Moen Group, architect Steve Rohrbach and builder Mike Hahn. This team is well known locally for its integrity and for its ability to produce quality results.

Plans for the new building include two intimate movie theaters, the next step in the swift success of Film Scene.

We urge the Council to vote in favor of this ambitious project, one that will enhance and enliven our downtown, which continues to grow as an attractive destination. Under the guidance of Nancy Bird, Nancy Quellhorst and many others, the area is becoming a sought after place to live, work and have fun. The Music Building of the University of Iowa, as well as the incoming UI Museum of Art, are part of an increasingly vibrant downtown. The Chauncey will complement the theaters, galleries, restaurants, shops and residences that are currently flourishing.

We are, indeed, burbling along with entrepreneurial activity. The recent designation of Iowa City as the most successful college town in the country, for populations under 250,000, as well as regular recognition as a major retirement center, are a testament to sustained creative activity: the results can only attract more students to the university and to Kirkwood Community College, as well as new residents, retirees and visitors.

We urge the council to affirm what is happening in our city by approving The Chauncey.

Wallace and Karen Chappell

Iowa City

# # #

From Earmarks (D.C.) to TIFs (I.C.): America's Fascist Economy

July 15, 2014, 3:55 p.m.
TIFs -- Therrre Back!!

"The people who own the country ought to govern it."

-- John Jay; Frank Monaghan, John Jay, chapter 15, p. 323 (1935).

I like Marc Moen -- including many of his architectural and other ideas for Iowa City.

What I don't like is the City Council's infiltration of the efforts of Iowa City's entrepreneurs, start-ups, established businesses, and capitalism generally by picking and choosing which for-profit enterprises they will infuse with taxpayers' money.

Today's Press-Citizen reports that the Council's latest give-away is going to Marc Moen in the amount of $14 million!! That's a little rich even for the members of Iowa City's City Council. Mitchell Schmidt, "Committee Approves Chauncey Funding Model; Recommends That City Council Back $14.1M TIF Request, Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 15, 2014, p. A1 [Credit for photo of proposed building: Iowa City Press-Citizen.]

Here are some relevant numbers. According to the 2010 census Iowa City contains 67,862 people, 27,657 households, and 11,743 families. Divide $14 million by those numbers and you get: $206.30 per person, $506.20 per household, or $1192.20 per family. Is there the remotest possibility that if the question of making those gifts to Moen from every Iowa City resident was put to a vote that it would ever muster a majority of support?

For nearly a decade I have been writing in newspaper articles and blog essays about the problems with TIFs, providing lists of the categories of their objectionable consequences -- why these transfers are bad for taxpayers, consumers, competitors of the recipients, the general economy, neighboring communities and governments, among other reasons. One column, from this past April, may be a useful summary: "Tussling Over TIFs: Pros and Cons."

A list of 39 of those prior columns and essays can be found in "TIFs: Links to Blog Essays."

Earlier this year I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column essentially throwing in the towel, revealing my misunderstanding regarding transfers of taxpayers' money to for-profit enterprises from earmarks in Washington to TIFs in Iowa City:

"Like 'Amazing Grace,' I was blind, but now I see: We don’t have a capitalist system. We probably never did. So how should we describe our economy? The word 'fascism' carries too much baggage from World War II -- dictators, suppression of opposition, aggressive nationalism, and even racism. 'Fascism' doesn’t describe America today. But from Washington, D.C., to cities, counties and states all across America, in terms of an economy, ours is the economy of fascism."

"TIF Apology."

Whether in Washington, Des Moines, or Iowa City, our elected officials, like Italy's Benito Mussolini 70 years ago, love to intertwine government and business into a kind of fascist economic whole within which, in our time, they can give our money to for-profit businesses. Who wouldn't like to get the credit (plus campaign contributions, and the virtually guaranteed re-election they make possible) for spending other people's money?

And the citizens, taxpayers and voters go along. They may support the idea of TIFs, they may not be paying attention, they may understand and oppose them but figure it's fruitless to protest, that the deck is stacked against them. The net result is the same: the officials are re-elected, and taxpayers' money continues to flow to the relatively wealthy and for-profit businesses.

To make matters worse, Iowa City's TIF-lovers now propose to add disrespectful insult to economic injury, by raising the sales tax (disproportionately borne by the poor and working poor), and shifting most of the income from this sales tax increase to property owners in the form of reduced property taxes -- thereby softening any possible political opposition from them to the TIF giveaways.

Council members' governing principle is similar to that of John Jay (1745-1829), as expressed in the quotation with which this blog summary began: "The people who own the country ought to govern it." Delete the "ought to" from that line and it pretty well describes governing in America today, whether nation, state -- or Iowa City. And those who own Iowa City are the members of the business community and, as in John Jay's time, the property owners.

But until the Council exercises the candor to place Jay's quote over the entrance to the City Hall, openly and candidly acknowledging what they are doing, I will continue to protest the hypocrisy of the community's TIF-funded fascism.
# # #

A TIF Discussion

June 9, 2013, 10:15 a.m.

Evolution of A Family's TIF Policy Position

A TIF, or "Tax Incremental Financing," is a technique utilized by local governmental units to, among many other things, provide taxpayer money to for-profit, private businesses, such as high-rise, multi-use buildings containing condo housing, office space, and shops.

There is a good deal of debate among and between economists, public officials, anti-tax groups, editorial writers, and the for-profit beneficiaries regarding the wisdom and equity of this approach, as well as other systems of taxpayer funding for private projects.

Sometimes the different approaches pop up in family discussions. So it has been with my son, Gregory Johnson, ResourcesForLife.com, and myself.

A recent exchange, involving an article he wrote and posted on his Web site that triggered an ongoing exchange on Facebook, I thought worth preserving on this blog for what it might contribute to the evolving thinking of others who are trying to formulate their own opinions on this significant public policy issue.

From my perspective, although Gregory challenges this, as you'll see below, he began his approach to TIF policy some months ago with an effort to justify the use of TIFs from Iowa City taxpayers for the downtown, highrise projects of Marc Moen, an innovative developer and friend of Gregory's. (In his article, below, some of this continues, as he notes, following his listing of standards for awarding TIFs, "The Moen Group would be one example of a developer that would pass the above requirements." And again, "Interestingly, the developer being awarded the experimental TIF money (MoenGroup.com) would actually pass the above 7-question qualification assessment test.")

I also like Marc Moen, though I'm relatively confident given my positions he would not consider me a "friend," and I have a similar (though not identical) approach to his with regard to what Iowa City's downtown (laid out in 1839), needs in the 21st Century. My objections, such as they are, primarily address the propriety of using taxpayers' money to fund his projects -- not him, or the design of his buildings.

Whether that was in fact Gregory's starting point or not, Gregory is now making a real effort to come up with a sensible, balanced approach to cities' use of TIFs, recognizing both their inherent disadvantages and the likelihood they are going to continue to be used whether we like it or not. As he puts it (in the very last lines reproduced in this blog essay): "The reasons for not using TIFs to fund private enterprise are well founded and seem to outweigh the benefits. However, it seems that municipalities across the nation don't care (including ours). That being the case, if we are going to have inappropriate uses of TIFs, should there be a decision process? That's what I'm exploring."

Here, then, are yesterday's exchanges, starting with the major portion of his opening article, and then progressing to the exchanges within a Facebook discussion.

Guidelines for Selecting TIF-Based Funding of Urban Development Projects
Gregory Johnson
http://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item6947

Traditional TIF Use. The use of TIF-Based funding is traditionally limited to restoring areas of urban blight. The rationale for this is that poverty is too expensive. That is to say that illiteracy, homelessness, unemployment, substance abuse, crime, incarceration, and other social problems caused by poverty cost society much more than simply eradicating poverty. Some would call this socialism. Others would describe it as simply being fiscally responsible with capital by seeking the maximum return on investment. This, of course, isn’t a practice that all people condone, but it’s embraced by a majority of people, so municipalities are not required to have a vote for using tax revenue in this way. Wikipedia describes the founding principles of TIF usage:

“TIF was designed to channel funding toward improvements in distressed, underdeveloped, or underutilized parts of a jurisdiction where development might otherwise not occur. ” [Source: Wikipedia]

Experimental TIF Use. In recent years, municipalities have implemented experimental uses of TIF-Based funding to include urban development projects that are private business ventures. Without taxpayer consent, city council members are taking tax revenue and giving it to private business owners. This has resulted in public protests from groups that, given the chance, would otherwise vote down such initiatives were they bonds to raise funds for public projects. In theory, the rationale for giving tax revenue to private enterprise is that the initial loan will be repaid in substantially higher property taxes. Once repaid, the ongoing tax revenue will be a benefit to the city.

The goal of experimental TIFs is a long-term increase in property tax income that should recuperate the original investment. Additional financial support allows developers to build beyond what they might have otherwise been able to. This may include aspects of sustainability, urban beautification, and mixed use space that might typically not be considered. Developers seeking maximum profits may create single-use ugly buildings with little consideration of sustainability. Developers given additional financial support may create multi-use attractive buildings with a greater investment in architectural design and sustainable practices.

Usually the only developers who get selected for such experimental projects are those who have a past record of success in the community, and a base of community support for their projects. Communities should be leery of special financial incentives extended to unknown out-of-town developers who have not demonstrated any commitment to the local community and may skip town when the going gets tough.

For communities considering experimental uses of TIFs as an investment, it is advisable to use a dollar cost averaging approach to their implementation, particularly when their use involves giving tax payer money to private enterprise. Because this use may be a risky investment, and because they typically involve tax-free contracts that extend decades, a city can quickly get overextended if the city government becomes “TIF-happy” and erodes the public tax base.

TIF Qualification Assessment Checklist. In general, people are either in favor of experimental TIF use or against it. I would propose that people should be neither “For” or “Against” the use of TIF-Based funding. Instead, communities should utilize a checklist to determine when a TIF should or shouldn’t be used. Below are some questions that should be asked which should rule out about 99.9% of all requests for TIF-Based funding of private projects.

(1) Previous Interest. Has the developer previously shown an interest in the community, or is the TIF a bribe to get an otherwise uninterested and uncommitted developer to build in your community? If the developer has previously shown an interest in the community, without any special favors, then continue to question #2, otherwise TIF should not be used.

(2) Mixed Use. For the other projects the developer has in the community, are those utilizing best practices of mixed use spaces that will enrich an area by having retail space, office space, and residential living? If YES, then continue to question #3, otherwise TIF should not be used.

(3) Past Success. Have the other projects of the developer been successful? If yes, continue to question #4, otherwise TIF should not be used because that would not be a TIF it would be simply TF (tax funding) without a guarantee of an ‘increment’ in tax revenue if the project fails.

(4) Architecture Evaluation. Certainly there are many genres of architecture, and just as many opinions about what is attractive. For the style of architecture being proposed, is the building considered to be attractive by those who appreciate that style of architecture? For example, if the proposed development uses modern design, do people find it to be an innovative and attractive example of modern architecture? If yes, continue to question #5, otherwise TIF should not be used.

(5) Beautification. Businesses and investors generally look at the bottom line and profits when planning a project. An ugly poured cement building or unimaginative brick facade would be popular choices. Similar to question #4, does the proposed development project place value on the aesthetic appearance of the building in a way that demonstrates the developer’s passion to look beyond profits to envision ways that architecture can be a form of habitable art and community beautification? If yes, continue to question #6, otherwise TIF should not be used.

(6) Property Management. Is the developer simply looking to turn a quick profit by constructing a cheaply-made building and then selling it without making any long-term commitment to ensure the property is cared for and the businesses within it are profitable, or, instead, is the developer taking a personal interest in the long-term management and oversight of the property? If the developer is taking an interest in the long-term care of the property, then continue to question #7, otherwise TIF should not be used.

(7) Commitment. If the developer thinks their project is so wonderful, ask them this simple final question: “Would you be willing to actually live in the buildings you are constructing and reside in the neighborhood where you develop?” Most developers will say no, and you can tell them to seek private funding. However, if you have a developer who has answered yes to all of the above questions, then such a developer should probably be retained and well supported by the city because developers like this would be very hard to come by and can be a huge asset to any community.

The above list of requirements may seem like an impossible set of requirements for any developer to meet. However, there are developers that meet such requirements. The Moen Group would be one example of a developer that would pass the above requirements.

There is a commentary and response to the above found at the bottom of this page. In summary, those opposed to giving public tax revenue to private developers would conclude that no decision tree will change the fact that taxes aren’t meant to support private business.

Case Study – Iowa City. In Iowa City, we’ve had several experimental uses of TIF-funded development projects that fall outside their traditional use and best practices. This has raised a significant amount of public outcry, partly because tax payers did not vote on or approve this private enterprise business use of their tax dollars. Interestingly, the developer being awarded the experimental TIF money (MoenGroup.com) would actually pass the above 7-question qualification assessment test.

Dollar Cost Averaging. Because TIF funded private projects represent some risk, the principle of dollar cost averaging should be used. By waiting 7 to 10 years between TIF funded projects, there is enough time to reassess their success, and spread out risk, and spread out the depletion of the municipal tax base revenue.

TIF Concerns. The remainder of this document will explore TIF concerns and potential problems with TIFs. As mentioned above, in recent years, TIFs have been used as a mechanism for taking tax payer money and handing it over to wealthy developers and private business. These are some additional concerns about TIFs that makes their use for private enterprise prohibitive in any circumstances. I believe these are valid concerns that may take precedence over any possible benefit of experimental TIF use.

Infrastructure Needs Come First. Roads, schools, libraries and other shared community infrastructure are traditional government undertakings. Funding private enterprise with tax payer dollars is not.

Public Input is Essential. Although voter approval is not required, citizen participation is essential and any city government that does not seek citizen input does so to the detriment of the entire community. TIF funding is similar to public bonds and should be treated the same way.

Enhancing or Expanding Wealthy Developments Isn’t Essential. When TIFs are used to make posh and upscale living even more decadent, they run the risk of broadening the gap between the working poor and wealthy in a community. Initially TIFs were intended for urban renewal and low-income housing. The intention was to give the underprivileged a leg up. Giving the wealthy a financial boost at the expense and sacrifice of the poor seems backwards.

Free Marketplace. Most of us believe in the power and effectiveness of the free marketplace to produce equitable and responsible outcomes. Businesses answer to consumer needs and wishes, or they feel the results in their bottom line. Providing tax payer funding reduces or eliminates these marketplace checks and balances. Additionally, TIFs create an imbalance in the marketplace giving some businesses an immense advantage over others.

Disparity of Profits and Losses. A TIF funded project distributes risks of loss and opportunities for profit inequitably because profits are guaranteed to be received by the developer, but if there are losses (if a business folds) the taxpayers will bear the brunt of that outcome.

Business and State Partnership. TIFs intertwine government and business in something that’s neither socialism or capitalism. TIFs represent an erosion of the democratic process whereby the tax payers are stripped of their autonomy, self governance, and money for the benefit of private enterprise. When officials give millions in taxpayers’ money to private, for-profit businesses, the temptations for good-old-boy corruption are great — and virtually impossible to uncover.

Business Incentives and Accommodations. It’s not necessary to give handouts to businesses to gain their approval. Changes in zoning regulations and building codes (for example) can help give businesses a boost without using taxpayer money. Municipalities compelled to bribe business as a means for pleading to win developers is a losing downward spiral that only ends after the last parcel of land is TIFed away. TIFs can devastate a government’s credit rating, thereby increasing the cost of future legitimate projects. Instead, municipalities should be firm and financially conservative when approving what businesses they allow to develop in a given area. Rather than asking, “What can we pay to convince you to develop in our community?” municipalities should be posing the question, “What will you give our community for the privilege of having a business here?”

Impact on Public Funds. Money shifted over to TIF use is pulled from the same collective pot that would otherwise fund schools, programs, and other government units. In the short-term, this creates a deficiency, and in the long-term, if profits are not as expected, there may be a permanent negative impact on other community funding needs.

Difficult to Determine Needs. In some situations, a city will be told by a potential developer that they can’t proceed with a project unless they receive a certain amount of funding from the city. It is difficult for a city to determine the actual needs of that developer, so the city will end up trusting the foxes to guard the henhouse as the money is trustingly handed over.

Higher Risk. Much of the ‘risk’ in business outcome success has to do with those governing and guiding a business. In a traditional business model, all those involved are equally committed to ensuring success. With TIF funded projects, public officials may lack the business experience required to ensure success, and having no personal financial money tied up in a project, there is little incentive to oversee and ensure the success of a project.

Payoffs to Win Business. Sometimes municipalities get into a bidding war trying to win over a certain business or developer. If a developer isn’t adequately committed to your community, and requires that you bribe them to come to your community, that’s not a good place to start a relationship. Choose only businesses and developers who are sufficiently ‘invested’ in your community that you need not bribe them to come. Businesses pick cities for reasons other than TIFs: workforce, local economy, schools, transportation, communication, quality of life. Focus on investing in those assets instead. Otherwise, the money you give to business will be diverted away from the infrastructure that would otherwise attract more business. Indeed, it’s in the best interest of many businesses to depress the local economy and reduce the quality of life in order to attract people who might fill low-wage jobs. So, businesses aren’t always the best friend of a local community or economy.

Risk of Corruption. When officials give millions in taxpayers’ money to private, for-profit businesses, the temptations for good-old-boy corruption are great — and virtually impossible to uncover.

More information about TIFs can be found online on the FromDC2Iowa blog where the inspiration for much of the above content is available.

_______________
And now, the Facebook exchanges:

Nicholas Johnson "Tough TIF Talk," http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/02/tough-tif-talk.html

In his latest effort to justify the use of taxpayer money (TIFs) for Marc Moen's buildings, Gregory Johnson offers, "Guidelines for Selecting TIF-Based Funding of Urban Development Projects," http://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item6947.

His "Guidelines" are a constructive step forward; I especially like the decision-tree approach.

However, with respect, I think they still fail to address the elephant in the living room.

So far as I know, none of the economists who oppose crony capitalism argue that there are NO benefits to taxpayer-funded pro football stadiums, for example, or TIFs -- such as short term jobs for construction workers, and a somewhat useful new facility.

But by that standard, there are also benefits from a teenage gang drug distribution organization -- jobs for otherwise unemployed teens, business training, a development of their math skills, sense of responsibility, and ability to work with others.

In short, the issue is NOT whether there are ANY benefits from a Moen project; of course there are, and he lists some of them. The issue is whether those benefits are enough to warrant taking money from the county and schools, subsidizing one housing/office building owner while forcing all others to compete with him without the benefit of taxpayer financing, undercutting banks and other potential investors with cheap taxpayer money when private funding might have been available for the same or a slightly modified project, the risk of corruption when officials are picking winners and losers, and on and on with the list of 20 problems with TIFs I have repeatedly referred to. See "Tough TIF Talk," http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/02/tough-tif-talk.html

In short, the issue is NOT whether Moen does, or does not, make any contribution to downtown Iowa City with his buildings.

The issues are: (1) Does he really NEED this taxpayer money to do what he does (perhaps in a slightly scaled down version)? And (2) Even if there ARE benefits to his projects, zero risks to taxpayers, and he is sufficiently impoverished that he could do nothing at all without taxpayer funding, do those benefits warrant the TIFs, given all the (a) other-than-financial adverse consequences as well as (b) taxpayer costs, and (c) opportunity costs (things the City doesn't/can't fund as a result of what it's given him)?

THAT'S the question that has still not been addressed by anyone to my knowledge, let alone answered to my satisfaction.

_______________
Gregory Paul Johnson These are all very good points and useful suggestions for expanding on the decision tree, if there is to be one. I recognize that some people feel any use of taxpayer money for private business is an inappropriate use.

_______________
Nicholas Johnson Permit me to offer an alternative response/argument you could make that I think would be more to the point and effective.

To say that "some people feel any use of taxpayer money for private business is an inappropriate use" is like saying (to use my example of the teenage drug gang) "some people oppose all teenage gangs."

It's true that some conservative capitalists would oppose TIFs as a form of corporatism or crony capitalism, a bastardization of pure capitalism, on ideological grounds. Capitalism includes the possibility of devastating financial losses as well as the possibility of enormous profits; they are offended by a "heads (i.e., profits) I win (i.e., keep the profits" and "tails (i.e., losses) you lose (i.e., taxpayers cover them)" system.

There are others who believe the only legitimate, constitutional use of taxpayers' money is for military expenditures.

Neither is what's involved here.

There are actual, very real harms (not to mention risks), produced by TIFs, some of which I've itemized in the Facebook entry, and linked blog essay. These are not observations derived from a belief that "any use of taxpayer money for private business is inappropriate," or some other ideological or political philosophy.

As such, they are analogous to the observations that drug dealing often leads to addiction, other health problems (and in the case of drive-by shootings, death), and is associated with other criminal behavior -- which are also not based on an ideological, or political, opposition to all teenage gangs.

It seems to me, therefore, that you have three possible arguments [with regard to any of the 20 categories of objections to TIFs]: (1) denial (e.g., "there is no data or other reason to believe that when the government underwrites a for-profit venture with taxpayers' money it creates an unfair advantage, tips an otherwise level playing field, or otherwise harms the non-publicly-funded competitors"), (2) trivialization (e.g., "yeah, there are a number of taxpayer-funded private profit efforts that are never completed or go belly up, but not many of them, and those that are successful can be very successful"), or (3) to borrow from Lilly Tomlin, "we don't care, we don't have to, we're the telephone company," or, as in this case, the City Council (e.g., "corruption is part of government; always has been, always will be; there are a thousand ways a beneficiary can reward a public official, you can't possibly track, let alone prevent, all of them; so there's some possibility with TIFs, too; so what?").

But I don't think you are persuasive in disposing of the real and serious adverse effects of TIFs when you fail to address them, and rely on the dismissive "some people" don't like any TIFs.

_______________
Gregory Paul Johnson Just to clarify, you mentioned that my article is my "latest effort to justify the use of taxpayer money (TIFs) for Marc Moen's buildings." It's not written with that myopic intent, but genuinely an effort to think broadly about whether TIFs should be used at all beyond their original intent. If so, then how would one make a decision. At present, there seems to be no rational decision tree being applied.

_______________
Gregory Paul Johnson I think any balanced presentation about TIF use should include mention of the 'very real harms and risks' associated with their use for funding private enterprise. That's why I included a summary of those dangers/concerns in my original article and also linked to your comprehensive article on the topic. There's a serious problem of tax payers not being included in the decision process of how their money is spent. I mentioned this in my article as well.

I've now revised my article to reflect the points/comments you made above. In case it wasn't clear, I changed the wording to state, "I believe these are valid concerns that may take precedence over any possible benefit of experimental TIF use." I plan to make further modifications as more comments come in.

I don't think that there are three possible arguments (1) denial, (2) trivialization, (3) not caring.

The reasons for not using TIFs to fund private enterprise are well founded and seem to outweigh the benefits. However, it seems that municipalities across the nation don't care (including ours). That being the case, if we are going to have inappropriate uses of TIFs, should there be a decision process? That's what I'm exploring.

# # #