The laugh is going to be on all the local cities and such that do that.
Yep stars in their eyes about how much money and jobs BS, so they will fork out tons of money and "incentives" while destroying the locals to make room for the rich.
The moment the "incentives" run out, they move to the next spot that offers them incentives unless the current place gives them an even better deal.
I don't disagree with that. It is very hard for the small landlords and property owners to compete when their NNNs are @ $2.30, and the new, 26' clear, tilt ups have NNNs of $.07. I run into it all the time, and it makes it really hard, no doubt. I'm bumping along a pot-holed filled street when 1/4 mile away there is 700,000 Sq. Ft. not paying ANY taxes at all, and the little guys are getting squozen. That is makes people mad is understandable.
However..., those incentivized properties aren't going away in 15 years when the tax abatement/incremental financing expires. I've seen the same thing with loft developments in the city. The projects simply don't happen without subsidies. The abatement and the incentives ARE the profit, and it is simply beyond question at this point that the developments and the economic activity they generate pay back in terms of revenue and economic activity at a 500% rate over ten years. The numbers from LIHTCs and HTCs are undeniable at this point. It is short term pain for long term gain.
Yes, it blows for the 10-15 years when the developers are getting a free ride on the backs of the tax paying public, but once those properties start coming on line the revenues start skyrocketing, and the truth of the matter is that they never really drop as long as the space gets filled with businesses.
Now, if it's some mega company that's just running distribution space, then I agree with you, but for the vast majority of subsidized development there is no question it is a new gain for that MSA in terms of total economy over the course or the program. I can assure you that it would not be happening in so many places if this was just some sort of rich-get-richer (though they do) scheme at the expense of the municipality. The ones that have been doing this since the early '90s are in a position where they are so fiscally sound it isn't a risk at all.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but in my experience this works. Subsidizing and incentivizing the private sector to achieve your civic goals, where it makes sense to tip the numbers just a little, works. Creating programs, government grants, or creating government projects clearly does not work, at all. In fact, it's almost always a total disaster and achieves the opposite of what the well meaning fools intend.
liquidass.com
www.ft.com
www.bedbathandbeyond.com
