Everything Is An “Economic Revitalization Area”
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 7/21/08 @ 1:30 am - Filed Under City Council, Featured
This Tuesday the City Council will hold a public hearing about declaring the corner of Wallen & Coldwater an economic revitalization area. So what is an economic revitalization area anyway? Well it’s specifically defined by state statute ( IC 6-1.1-12.1)
Sec. 1. For purposes of this chapter:
(1) “Economic revitalization area” means an area which is within the corporate limits of a city, town, or county which has become undesirable for, or impossible of, normal development and occupancy because of a lack of development, cessation of growth, deterioration of improvements or character of occupancy, age, obsolescence, substandard buildings, or other factors which have impaired values or prevent a normal development of property or use of property. The term “economic revitalization area” also includes:
(A) any area where a facility or a group of facilities that are technologically, economically, or energy obsolete are located and where the obsolescence may lead to a decline in employment and tax revenues; and
(B) a residentially distressed area, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
First, let me just say that this is basically in my neighborhood as I live less than a mile from the site. Second, in no way, should this area qualify as an economic revitalization area. There have been over a hundred new homes and apartments built in this area, a new shopping center that is filling up, a gas station, and a major office complex - all in the last 5 years.
This area is clearly showing strong signs of economic growth and frankly I find it insulting that the city wants to label something in this neighborhood an Economic Revitalization Area. The city has and continues to abuse the tax abatement process and I believe this property is another example of that.
Just read the state statute cited above and then visit the area and you tell me if it meets the spirit of the law. In fact the city should be publicly challenged to specify exactly which part of the above statute they are using to declare this area an Economic Revitalization Area.
The city council needs to end the current piecemeal abatement process and do one of the following:
- Approve abatements that only go to ACTUAL Economic Revitalization areas
- Streamline the abatement process so everyone gets one without any of the bureaucratic red tape
- Lower the tax rate for everyone so companies receiving abatements are not given an economic advantage over their competitors
Comments
19 Responses to “Everything Is An “Economic Revitalization Area””
Leave a Reply
Jeff - Recall that the first step in the unnecessary new baseball stadium was the declaration of the corner of Harrison and West Jefferson Blvd. as an Economically Distressed Area over the objections of the owners of the Bellmont store on this site! And have you noticed that NOTHING AT ALL is happening on this part (or for that matter any part upon which the “improvements????” are not being paid with our tax dollars) of the boondoggle?
ERA’s can, per our city redevelopment “professionals”, be located ANYWHERE in the city limits!!
I agree, it’s time for Tom, Mitch, Liz, Marty and especially the 3rd district councilman, Thomas to rein-in these “public-be-damned” city employees!!!
What about all the places closing on Coliseum? I am sure there are plenty of other parts of town that would qualify as an “Economic Revitalization Area” before the area in question.
To John Kalb: I need to take exception to one part of you disagreement with incentives.
You seem to want to believe that City Council is being taken to the cleaners by a band of rogue public employees who make decisions without their knowledge or consent. By now I have to believe that you know that isn’t the case.
City Council sets tax abatement policy. City Council approves the creation of target areas. City Council approves the awarding of tax abatements. These economic development professionals you’re sneering at do what the decision makers and policy makers tell them to do.
The “public-be-damned” city employees you refer to don’t really exist.
It is 100% absurd for the City Administration to request that this area be declared an “Economic Revitzliation Area.”
The only reason the City would be making this request of City Council is that they must have someone who wants to build on this land and that person wants a tax abatement.
This should be shot down 9 - 0…
Mike Sylvester
OK, so I guess that the SOUTHEAST is no longer considered an economic revitalization area, thanks to Menards & Wal Mart.
Yep, we’re done down there…
Maybe the city is waiting for another regentrification so they can THEN make ur part of town an ER area.
(That’s not an “emergency room”, but the econ. revital. area, although the terms are similar, don’t you agree?)
;)
B.G.
Actually, I had the opportunity to drive West Jefferson - you know - before you get to Parkwest?
And I see lots of abandoned buildings, weeds growing through cracks in parking lots of said abandoned buildings, etc…THAT area, which is across the way from Swinney Park, should be something looked at way before Wallen and Coldwater.
John,
Sorry that you feel you must defend the city’s economic development department because your wife works there. But there is rampant incompetence and/ or corruption in this area of local government.
Too many economic proposals are pushed with statisitcs and projections are that blatantly false.
Whether you like it or not. Jeff is right.
Marc:
I didn’t disagree with Jeff at all. Everything I’ve ever read by Jeff has been well thought out nd well reasoned.
If you read my post, you’ll notice that I disagreed solely with John Kalb’s premise that City Council is being led around by the nose by rogue city employees. He knows better, I know better and you know better.
He and others apparently don’t want to question the decision makers. They want to throw 100% of the blame for policies with which they disagree at the feet of the people who IMPLEMENT policy.
That’s the easy way out. I suggest taking this argument to the people who MAKE policy, not lobbing asinine accusations at people who do what the policy makers tell them to do.
I’m not defending or criticizing the city’s economic development program. I’m criticizing a lazy argument.
By the way, a lazy argument would include one that brings my wife up in its first breath.
Mr. McGauley: How have you gotten into my brain to enable you to know what I think? And how do you know what is going on in our city government with such clarity that you can say that ALL city employees are only operating under the constant direction of elected policy makers?
Case #1: One of the city employees asks another city employee to make out checks to entities BEFORE anyone in an elected position approves (or can legally approve) this payment. Please see what was done in the purchase of 90% of the property bought by our Redevelopment Department for Harrison Square. If you need details, I can get them to you - all have been covered in prior posts over the last year and a half.
Case #2: The Redevelopment Commission (all appointed) and the Redevelopment Department (all hired city employees) have been operating under rules that they established relative to 1) What falls under the definition of an Economic Development Area, an Economically Distressed Area, an Economic Revitalization Area; 2) When a Tax Incremental Financed area has completed the planned project (never until the number of years set up for it’s MAXIMUM life !!); 3) What entities qualify for Property Tax Deferment - always promised in advance of council approval; and 4) Gerrymandering of Economic Development Areas to include what they want developed - not what the public needs or desires.
My response to Jeff’s post was not intended to place ALL city employees into the “public-be-damned” category but only those to which it properly applies. AND SOME DO INDEED EXIST in our city government, contrary to your comment.
Here is how it should work:
1. Economically prosperous areas do not need help from the city, since developers already are highly motivated to build in these areas.
2. Economically depressed areas do not need help from the city. Landlords, tenants, and homeowners either work together to bring the value of the neighborhood up, or property values drop. If the stakeholders aren’t willing to work to improve their area, the city should not waste resources helping them.
I think my post conveys this but I just wanted to reiterate that I do believe city employees are simply following the guidance being set by city council.
The city has taken a position that anyone and everyone that could possibly receive a tax abatement should get one. Since the city has seen nothing but years of acceptance from council on this issue then why would they change that policy?
I believe this is poor policy and possibly illegal but the responsibility to change course lies with city council at this point. If they started denying some of these abatements then the city would stop bringing them forward…
I am not sure whether the policy change should technically come from City Council or from the Mayor’s office; however, in my opinion it should come from both the Mayor’s office and City Council.
Clearly the City employees involved are just following the current policy in which a tax abatement is granted for every possible project that it can be granted for; which is clearly wrong.
I think that our Mayor and our City Council should work together to change this policy as soon as possible.
Mike Sylvester
“I think that our Mayor and our City Council should work together to change this policy as soon as possible.”
And we are.
Karen,
I realize that several poeple on City Council are considering new rules; however, none have been implemented to date.
My comment was intended to point out that our tax abatement policy is not just up to City Council; the Mayor should influence it as well.
Mike Sylvester
Agreed, the City Council and the Mayor’s office should change the tax abatement process.
Coldwater & Wallen Rd is not in hardship.
Hey, if someone builds on the south side, they get an abatement. If they build near Coldwater, they get an abatement. Why not just give everybody an abatement?
I am sure I am not going to win many friends here on the blog but here is my take.
1- Old industrial should be able to obtain a higher tax abatement if it is purchased and updated. Maybe declared brown field areas.
2- A bare parcel of property brings in “X” dollars of tax money. A new building brings in more money right away. Even if it is based on abatement. At least we get 10% off the improvements over the “X” dollars then we did before.
3- Most of the work in building a new building is completed by local companies using local labor. Be it union or not. This spins off all kinds of increased taxes collected here.
4- Most new buildings bring new equipment and employees to jobs. This spins off all kinds of increased taxes. Also these new jobs bring more purchasing dollars to local businesses.
5- Most new buildings do not require increased police patrols. Hence, tax dollars collected, even if abated, do contribute to covering police protection of all the residents.
6- Most new buildings do not require increased fire portection. Hence, tax dollars collected, even it abated, do contribute to covering fire portection of all the residents. However, if a major fire does take place during the abated period the owners would loose their abatement.
7- I also support the idea of people purchasing old run down homes and obtaining abatements on the dollars improvements they make. However, they must live in the home and not rent them out.
I do believe there should be a multi level abatement. One level for brown field, one for refab of existing building, and the lesser on brand new buildings. Maybe brown field get ten years. Existing building obtaining eight years. New buildings only afforded six or seven years.
Just some food for thought.
JQ I think those are interesting ideas. I am saddened to often see new buildings going up so near existing ones that are for rent. Seems like a temporary economy. And there are plenty of opportunities for rehabbing commercial, industrial and residential. Hopefully people will listen with an open mind.
[...] Wallen road abatement that was eventually approved by city council. The letter mirrored much of my previous post here at FWP but the most significant part was my request to have the city enumerate exactly which [...]