Speaking of shabby downtowns
I happened to get a letter today from the Downtown Little Rock Partnership urging support for two bills that would give some honkin' huge state subsidies to downtown redevelopment projects.
SB 9 by Denny Altes would essentially have the state pay 25 percent of the cost, through transferrable tax credits, of rehabilitation of historic structures. You would have to rehabilitate an existing structure.
HB 1060 by Tracy Pennartz would have the state pay 20 percent of the first $2 million of a project. But any development project, rehab or new, would qualify. A new building where a parking lot once stood -- with a state agency waiting in the wings to rent -- would get the 20 percent subsidy. You don't have to think too hard to see how this bill might encourage demolition of existing structures. This prospect won't bother many. But I think it's a pity to give public dollars to support tear-downs of handsome brick architecture to make way for the likes of the prefab-style postoffices the federal govenrment now favors. Or similar. Maybe the credit shouldn't go to teardowns of historic structures.



Comments
Is this just like a TIF? Why are we subsidizing this development? How could either of these developments create revenue?
ARK. BLOG: There is a difference. They would not capture property taxes. They'd get an offset to income taxes equal to a percentage of the investment. A new building would create new property taxes for schools, etc., and the workers would have some benefit on the tax base.
Posted by: EasyB
|
February 18, 2009 10:13 AM
It's easy to look at these as government give-aways. However, whether historic rehab or new development, jobs are created, property tax base is increased, sales taxes are generated, etc. etc. It should be more appropriately viewed as a type of "economic stimulus".
Posted by: citizen
|
February 18, 2009 11:07 AM
Even in Chenal, living a life of utter fabulousness, untouched by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, one must Get Real about Main Street.
Hence my Krugmanesque analysis (only sorta sleazier), and solution, at clicky.
Posted by: NormaBates
|
February 19, 2009 07:40 AM