Saturday, November 3, 2012

The core dishonesty on Issue 2 requires NO vote

Posted By on Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 7:08 AM

REDEVELOPMENT? Mall at Turtle Creek in Jonesboro, which benefited from an earlier stab at a redevelopment amendment, would have been built with or without taxpayer subsidy, officials said at the time. Issue 2 heads down that same road.
  • REDEVELOPMENT? Mall at Turtle Creek in Jonesboro, which benefited from an earlier stab at a redevelopment amendment, would have been built with or without taxpayer subsidy, officials said at the time. Issue 2 heads down that same road.
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette's Michael Wickline wrote a thorough analysis of little-discussed (pay wall) Issue 2, another get-rich scheme for developers that is mostly flying under radar this election season. As I've said before, the Koch Bros.' paid mouthpiece in Arkansas, Teresa Oelke, quoted in the article, is dead right on this issue.

The constitutional scheme before voters Tuesday to allow local sales taxes to subsidize private retail development is nothing but corporate welfare, with no proven benefit to anyone except the corporation receiving the handout. They call it economic development or, worse, "redevelopment." But no retail store ever created new demand for socks, underwear, shotguns or anything else. It only shifted the business from somewhere else. If private businesses want to invest some money in, say, a Southwest Little Rock shopping center to build a giant sporting goods store that would cripple other sporting goods stores in the rest of Little Rock, Benton, North Little Rock or wherever, let them do it with their own dimes.

Read the language carefully:

Issue 2 would allow “the acquisition, development, redevelopment, and revitalization of land within the district, for eliminating or preventing the development or spread of slums or blighted, deteriorated, or deteriorating areas, for discouraging the loss of commerce, industry, or employment, for increasing employment, or any combination ... as may be defined by the General Assembly.” My emphasis supplied

There's all kind of cloaking language about redevelopment and revitalization but it is not REQUIRED by the plain language. To qualify for the handout, a business need only demonstrate it has bought land to open a business that will employ someone, even if it means a loss of jobs and resulting blight elsewhere. A Little Rock developer could get a tax subsidy to build a Brooks Brothers store in ritzy Pulaski Heights.

We went down this road before with the tax increment finance amendment, another developer boondoggle upended when the Supreme Court wouldn't let developers plunder school tax money for shopping centers. Now they're back trying to cadge sales tax money.

Remember Amendment 78, the "city and county government redeveloment" amendment"? It provided:

For purposes of this section, the term "redevelopment project" means an undertaking for eliminating, or preventing the development or spread of, slums or blighted, deteriorated, or deteriorating areas, for discouraging the loss of commerce, industry, or employment, or for increasing employment, or any combination thereof, as may be defined by the General

Again, I supplied emphasis in the passage above. All that claptrap about redevelopment was just a cloak for the real purpose, subsidies for developers in the richest cities. Create a job and you qualify, even if you kill jobs elsewhere with your project. One of the few projects shoved through under this handout before it (the TIF handout scheme) foundered was the Turtle Creek Mall in Jonesboro, in a better part of town, that further damaged competitively an older shopping center. Some redevelopment. Go-go Rogers and Little Rock and North Little Rock developers also were licking their chops and you can be sure they weren't targeting the ghetto.

It's another bite at the same apple. Vote NO ON ISSUE 2. The Kochs and the Arkansas Times, together at last.

Tags: , , , ,

Favorite

Speaking of...

Comments (17)

Showing 1-17 of 17

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-17 of 17

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

Readers also liked…

  • In defense of Planned Parenthood and abortion rights

    An op-ed in today's New York Time by Katha Pollitt says what I've been struggling to say about the reaction to the attack on women's reproductive rights launched by means of the undercover videos made by anti-abortion activists.
    • Aug 5, 2015
  • The inspiring Hillary Clinton

    Hillary Clinton's campaign for president illustrates again the double standard applied to women. Some writers get it. They even find the supposedly unlikable Clinton inspiring.
    • Oct 16, 2016
  • Rutledge refuses open records of fired trooper who now leads ABC enforcement

    Attorney General Leslie Rutledge yesterday refused to allow release of records that explain the 2000 firing of Boyce Hamlet as a state trooper.
    • Sep 1, 2015

Most Shared

Visit Arkansas

Forest bathing is the Next Big Thing

Forest bathing is the Next Big Thing

Arkansas is the perfect place to try out this new health trend. Read all about the what, why, where and how here.

Most Recent Comments

Blogroll

 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation