vision2020@moscow.com: Re: Business Park Series
Re: Business Park Series
Fritz Knorr (fritzk@moscow.com)
Mon, 22 Jan 1996 08:52:08 -0800
At 09:11 PM 1/21/96, Greg Brown wrote:
>At 08:00 PM 1/18/96 -0800, Fritz Knorr wrote:
>
>>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
>
Greg,
I agree with most everything you said. Its kind of what I was saying in the
first place.
Except that I think it is GOOD public policy to proceed with the "tax
increment" financing scheme for the business park. Yes, it is public
funding. Yes it is a little obscured who is actually putting up the money.
But, what choises are there?
Sometimes a community needs to publicly support an industry.
We already publicly support businesses and industries in a lot fo different
ways. Do you think that Wal-Mart doesn't get direct and indirect benifits
from the public? What about that highway? The stop light? The acceptance
of water quality degradation from their parking lot? And so on.
The difference here is that the support is just a little less indirect.
We're giving the landowner a tax break for ten years. A very wise
investment, I'd say.
Why can't we for once support an industry (research and technology) that we
want? Can't we be positive about the direction we want to go?
Fritz
This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet