By: Pat

Pat — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 04:25:35 +0000

The economic analysis would essentially be correct; however, one has to understand the underlying public policy that created the TIF financial tool. The TIF statutes in this state were created in 1976 by a Republican state house and senate and signed by a Republican governor. Free market purists would say that we should let the free market address “blight” without government intervention. Fundamentally that would be true until one actually examines the market. In blighted areas, the cost and more importantly the risk to develop or redevelop is significantly higher than in a green field development. Therefore, investors who bet with their wallet will always invest in green field development. Sure there are bottom feeders who will continue to try make a buck, but it won’t be anything of significance. One only has to drive around 9th and Grove to see that. Because economic obslescence brings increased poverty, crime, etc., it makes good public policy to provide an incentive for investment dollars to redevelop these areas and to reduce risk to the developer. New development creates opportunities to create jobs, incentivizes additional public investment, and fosters community pride and growth.

By: Boondoggler

Boondoggler — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:53:17 +0000

It’s my understanding that TIF districts usually include not only the development site, but also the surrounding neighborhood. So if developer ‘K’ gets $2.5 million, the cost is shared by the property taxes of everyone in the TIF district, and ‘K’ would actually repay only a percentage of of the $2.5 million.

Comments on: Wichita City Council’s misunderstanding of tax increment financing

By: Pat

By: Boondoggler