Louisville resident Ty Gee has articulated his anti-TIF concerns in a guest opinion in the Sunday Daily Camera. One of his key assertions:
"Among the highest duties of elected officials are to safeguard the public treasury and remain accountable to the people. Giving the Louisville Revitalization Commission control over $77 million of taxpayer dollars and over "incentivizing" — in effect, giving taxpayer money to — developers to develop is inconsistent with both duties. There is no precedent for this in the history of our city."
Several residents have also expressed deep concerns regarding the authority and scope of the LRC. as well as the entire process that has led up to this point. For the official version of what is happening and answers to some questions as they were raised at a Louisville City Council meeting last month, check out the minutes on the City of Louisville website. Scroll down to CONDUCTIONS SURVEY & URBAN RENEWAL PLAN in the minutes.
At this meeting, City Manager Bill Simmons said the Commission continues to believe that the proposed boundaries reflect the goals and objectives as outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as well as being prudent and reasonable. More links and comments on Louisville's TIF plan are found in this earlier posting too.
The Louisville City Council will be voting to approve this plan on Wednesday, November 8.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
ALthough the Markel development isn't going to be included in the blight zone, it is still questionable as to the justification of the King Soopers shoppiing area being added to the blight zone. The application of the technical characteristics may be legal, but it doesn't come across as practically compelling. Why sacrifice future income from Markel's residents to the LRC? And again, 25 years?!
I won't pretend to be an expert on what Louisville is trying to achieve with this urban renewal plan; however, almost any issue can be made "not compelling" if framed with extreme skepticism.
One doesn't even have to agree that blight designations are objectively true, much less legal, to understand that the City is trying to achieve something positive by enabling urban renewal. The intent, at least, is to improve the physical environment and enhance conditions for living and working in Downtown Louisville.
Whether the TIF will be implemented to the limit authorized or will generate a dime of incremental revenue is the crux. If the plan is successful, then there is some TIF income to worry about sacrificing. But if the urban renewal plan fails to attract development, fails to strike a workable land use balance, or generally fails as a physical plan, that would be the real concern. The irony is that hand-wringing about diversion of TIF revenue is premised on the >success< of the physical plan.
Also, Louisville's LRC is being derided for somehow being illegitimate when it rigidly follows the statutory prescription for membership, ethics, powers, and so forth.
While I have no expertise on the Louisville plan - and I would even imagine that there are potential problems with it - I have found it remarkable that there is so much concern about urban renewal in Louisville, but none of it seems to draw from technical problems with the plan.
In what's appeared in print and on these pages so far, I see opposition to government and taxes in general. Why should we sacrifice any income at all to the government and its agencies, right? It's a fair question, and that's fine as a political stance, but, for all the attention it's received, I'm finding myself curiously uninformed about technical problems with the Louisville urban renewal plan.
Who says that King Soopers is in the blight zone? While the conditions survey apparently included this plaza, the Study Area to be subject to URA and TIF authority does not include that commercial area.
My earlier posts should be corrected. The written survey in the Resolution before Louisville's City Council tonight does declare Christopher Plaza, Louisville Plaza (King Soopers) and the Markel land to be blighted. Serious questions arise.
Post a Comment