vision2020
Re: Alturas Technology Park
"B. J. Swanson" wrote:
> Bill London, Duncan Palmatier, Greg Brown & others,
>
> Alturas seems to be a continual festering thorn to you. We debated
> this before and now it is coming up again; same issues, two years
> later.
There is no question that I personally dislike a project
that is built on a deceptive foundation (and always will),
but I don't think that is the issue Bill is raising regarding the
potential addition to Alturas.
Bill is asking whether the addition is consistent with
the mission of the project. There is nothing inherently
wrong with reviewing new projects as they relate
to the mission. Indeed, this should be standard business
practice.
> In your recent post, you said "the taxpayers of Moscow paid for a very
> complex scheme that shifted tax money from the city coffers to
> underwrite that infrastructure." Ninety-nine plus percent of Moscow
> taxpayers paid nothing for Alturas. Tax money was not shifted.
Tax increment revenues within the district are shifted from
general revenues to bond repayment, yes? How is this
not shifting? shift (shift) v. to move from one place,
position, direction, etc. to another
> The
> tax money we're talking about would not have existed without Alturas.
> Alturas CREATED the tax money. When the bonds are paid, the City gets
> the full benefit.
And the full costs. I understand the infrastructure
bonds had to be refinanced and that the City floated
some money to help meet payment schedules. Has the
original bond repayment schedule been modified?
> Alturas is an INVESTMENT.
Yes. A publicly underwritten one without
direct public consent. The City covered the risk
premiums although no cash was directly involved
(fortunately).
> The taxpayers who built
> or made improvements within the Urban Renewal District since 1996 ARE
> paying for the infrastructure. Taxpayers in the District who have not
> built or made improvements since 1996, as well as all other taxpayers
> in Moscow are NOT paying anything extra. They are, however, receiving
> substantial benefits now.
And costs.
> There are 50+ employees who work in Alturas
> Technology Park. Salaries and profits that stay in the community
> exceed $3 million annually. Indirect economic benefit is probably
> around $9 million annually. Compare this to the pre-Alturas Moscow
> Mall (now Eastside Marketplace); in foreclosure and disrepair, 18%
> occupied, a slum waiting to happen. How quickly we forget. Which
> would you rather have?
Actually, it would have made more sense to revitalize
Eastside Marketplace than to convert perfectly good
farm land and open space. But then, nobody wants to do real
urban renewal.
You claim that economic benefits exceed $3 million
annually. Who *specifically* in the community receives
this benefit? Can taxpayers in Moscow expect to
receive their pro-rated portion of the $3 million deducted
from their property taxes? Of course not. If your argument
were valid, we would expect to see property taxes decrease
as city infrastructure and tax base grows across the country.
We should see this happening on a large-scale, in multiple settings.
The empirical reality is just the opposite. As cities expand (and spawl),
property taxes increase, rather than decrease. Increased revenues
never keep pace with increased costs. The bottom line: economic
development schemes are generally well-conceived and
well-disguised wealth transfers within a community.
>
> Drifting? A Problem? Compared to what? Can we move away from
> after-the-fact negativism again?
Nothing wrong with critical dialogue, especially
regarding a major new project. But if you want
to keep it "positive", then we shold focus on the *specific*
structural mechanisms that will keep the new
addition consistent with the original project vision.
--
Greg Brown (gregb@alaskapacific.edu)
Associate Professor and Chair
Environmental Science Dept.
Alaska Pacific University
Anchorage, AK 99508
(907) 564-8267 FAX: (907) 562-4276
Back to TOC