Tax Abatement Bamboozle
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 7/28/08 @ 9:06 am - Filed Under Featured, Local Politics
Prior to the public hearing I sent a letter to council President Tom Didier voicing my opposition to the Coldwater & 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 definition of the Indiana Code they were using to classify this property an Economic Revitalization Area.
To my knowledge the city has never been challenged on this before and honestly I saw no way they could justify their decision based on the Indiana Code. Well Didier didn’t ask the question but councilman Tom Smith did. And what followed was a somewhat incoherent response from Elissa McGauley based on city code but never once mentioned the state law that they are bound by.
She did say “obviously we follow Indiana Code” but nowhere in her response did she follow up and answer councilman Smith’s (or my) question - exactly what definition from Indiana code is the city using? The state statute is very specific in its definition of Economic Revitalization Areas and if the city (and council) were following the code then the answer should’ve been very straightforward.
For reference I’ve posted the Indiana Code and then McGauley’s response. Judge for yourself whether she actually answered the question:
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.
Again, I don’t think McGauley is to blame here - the city has a policy and she’s carrying out that policy. But I would think that city council would be a little more concerned that their policy may be in violation of state law. At the very least it would be nice if the city included their justification, based on the definitions included in the state statute, for every single abatement brought before council…
Comments
6 Responses to “Tax Abatement Bamboozle”
Leave a Reply
Oh the intersection of Coldwater and Wallen
It appears that the mighty have fallen
What was thought to be hot
Is now apparently not
At least when the tax man comes callin’.
Silly boy. You expect anyone in the local government to have to answer for what they do? Example:
Question: How is Harrison Square going to make life better for Allen County residents?
Answer: It will revitalize downtown.
Question: How will that help?
Answer: It will revitalize downtown.
Question: What exactly will that mean for the average citizien.
Answer:
That’s about the same thing McGauley is doing here. The City Council must have concluded since McGauley talked long enough, she must know what she is talking about.
No, she did not answer the question. She just did a mini-fillibuster.
Welcome to the hood!
[...] two people I respect have told me that my Tax Abatement Bamboozle post came off as insulting Elissa McGauley’s intelligence. After re-reading it I’m [...]
Jeff, the people who come before Council are usually advocating on behalf of something. I’m not sure that it is such a bad thing for them to try and twist the argument in their favor a bit, because we all do this - even the individual citizens who speak to Council.
But the Council should have the intelligence to see through this, and the integrity to call those people to task. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case most times.
Do you remember last year when Councilman Schmidt pointed out the fact that the City had purchased land downtown, then turned around and sold it to the developers for a lower cost. He asked the simple and straight-forward question “Is this a subsidy?” Obviously it was, so if the question was answered honestly, the follow-up would have been “Has this cost been included as part of the project we are considering?”
If you will recall, the two gentlman seated at the table must have forgotten to study their B.S. handbook that day. They stuttered and mumbled for a few seconds until Gregg Leatherman interrupted from the audience. By saying “This extra expense was to cover equipment loss and moving expenses” he proved that it actually was a subsidy, but he worded it in a fashion to sound as though it wasn’t.
Here, Gregg Leatherman was just doing his job. He didn’t tell any outright lies, but he definitely twisted what he said. By evading the real question, It sounds like that’s exactly what Elissa McGauley was doing recently. It is Council’s fault for not challenging people who give obviously innaccurate or incomplete answers.
I agree 100%