>I attended the meeting also, and I wholeheartedly agree with Kenton. We
>want to keep these businesses in Moscow.
Fair enough.
>I am fully in favor of a "tax increment financing" subsidy to the research
>and technology businesses. My problem is that the tax subsidy goes to the
>land developers (indirectly to the tenants). Could we give the subsidy
>directly to the tenants to help with the rent on a private development?
Ouch. What is your criteria for handing out the money, Fritz? It has
long been argued that subsidies from timber sales benefit the local
economy. Are you in favor of continuing these timber sales subsidies?
How about agricultural subsidies? How do you determine who lives off
the dole and who doesn't? Why is one business favored and not
another? I realize the businesses in question are good businesses
run by good people but what you suggest is *not* good public policy, IMO.
If one is to subsidize local businesses, it must be a conscious
decision voted on *directly* by those who are picking up the tab, not
by those elected officials who benefit directly or indirectly from the
subsidy.
>Finally, why can't the advocates of this project just come right out and say
>this is a tax-financed subsidy? It is. All the hemming and hawing just
>looks like they are covering something up. It is a subsidy to a worthy cause.
Because they know it will never pass public scrutiny. It is patently unfair
for government to play favorites except under *very* special circumstances.
----------
Greg Brown
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Forestry, Southern Illinois University
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Dept. of Resource Recreation and Tourism, U. of
Idaho
gregb@uidaho.edu