vision2020
Re: Alturas history
Dave Potter wrote:
> Motivated by this loss, the EDC got to work to explore the creation of a
> business park. It's greatest purpose was to accomodate businesses that
> Moscow would otherwise lose if it continued not to have a suitable,
> professional, business park. Through much work and collaboration between
> the EDC, the University, the City, the State, and with explicit
> consultation with Vision 2020 members, as well as public hearings about the
> necessary re-zoning, Alturas was built.
Yes...but please address the real issue. Why
was the business park built in a rural area away
from the university using a loophole in a law
clearly intended for urban renewal? Is it ethical
to subvert the clear intent of a law? Are you
prepared to argue that the intent of the Idaho
law was to convert "blighted" open space?
The reality is that the City (and EDC) knew
that it would be cheaper (in the short run) and
easier to convert ag land than to redevelop a core
area in town.
> The taxes that will go to paying off the bonds do NOT come from your taxes,
> but from the property taxes corresponding to the lots and new buildings on
> Alturas.
One might this the "developers" accounting
system wherein all real "costs" incurred by
development projects are magically
transformed into public "benefits". Lots
of "credits" but never any "debits."
The money being paid to retire the
infrastructure bonds is (indirectly)money
out of the taxpayers' pocket....money that
would otherwise flow into City coffers if
these businesses were paying the same
as other businesses in the community.
Not convinced? Here is a logic excerise.
As a homeowner in Moscow, I approach the
City Council about the need to beautify
my neighborhood. I go before the City
Council with a specific proposal that would
allow me to fix up and beautify my house and
allow me to deduct these expenses from
my property tax bill. As a Council member,
would you grant my request? Why or why
not?
Property taxes support more than
physical community infrastructure. The
businesses in Alturas are receiving a
property tax holiday by not having
to pay the full community costs associated
with fire, police, traffic, and education
services (to name a few).
And then there is the issue of risk.
If the business park defaults on the bonds,
who eats it? I don't think I've
heard the definitive answer on this.
> At least in the case of Pac Sim and Anatech, it can be argued
> that these businesses may easily have moved from Moscow, where they would
> pay property taxes to some other municipality.
And those other municipalities would not incur
the costs of development, either.
One of the questions I ask my students is to
define and differentiate the two terms below:
economic growth
economic development
These terms are used so interchangably
that many regard them as synonyms. They
are not. The business park is clearly aimed at
economic growth. I'm not convinced it is achieving
economic development. How are we to know?
With a simple question. Has the quality of life
in Moscow increased as a result of the
business park?
--
Greg Brown (gregb@alaskapacific.edu)
Associate Professor
Environmental Science Department
Alaska Pacific University
(907) 564-8267
http://polar.alaskapacific.edu/gregb
Back to TOC