Posts
We are talking about the University Place (CDA--Commercial Development Agency) in Orem. The plan is to take $63 million in future property taxes, $44 million of it from Alpine School District, and allow the developer to reinvest that money into infrastructure. The largest property owner in the City of Orem will get a $63 million tax break. If we were to give this amount in tax breaks to every business in Orem, that would be about $25,000 per business.
Even though, this is legal, I believe it is wrong for several reasons. And, "at least, I'm consistent!"
My fellow board member Paula Hill has an excellent commentary on this issue. I concur!
I am reading comments about the Orem Mall (newly minted as “University Place”). I would like to explain the pros, and then give my take as to why they are wrong.
Alpine District currently receives $1,123,000 a year in property tax from the existing mall. The tax incentive plan proposes to give ASD either 25% or 50% (both have been discussed) of all property tax increase, leaving the original $1.1 million still coming in to the district. The incentive is only for the infrastructure, as ASD does not participate in residential or commercial properties. There is no “giving” of district money to anyone, any way.
This is not a backroom deal made by smarmy “suits” determined to rob the public of their fair share. These are conclusions drawn by fine administrators with good business sense. It appears to be a win-win: the incentive helps the business grow, and even though we get a small part, a small part of a lot is better than all of nothing. And of course in twenty years, we get the whole she-bang.
These are the flaws I see in the reasoning.
1. It is economic engineering, human beings peering into the next twenty years and making informed guesses, but guesses just the same.
2. It is based on false principles—the correct economic principle being allowing the free market to function, well, freely.
3. It violates two of the items on the ASD criterion for CDA’s (or RDA’s, or whatever initials we come up with)
Our discussion at the September 9 Board meeting included, “What do we have to lose?” meaning would we rather have a small piece of the cake or no cake at all? My response was that I am not a gambler, especially with the tax-payers’ money, but since we have to make a call I am going with the principle of the free market knowing what is best. I choose 100% of the property tax growth free enterprise will engineer, all on its own, versus one-half to one-fourth of what the “suits” are declaring we will get. It is not that I do not see the value to the district as well as to the community of the revitalization of Orem, it is that I do not believe there is a right way to do the wrong thing. And the tax incentive for University Place is the wrong thing.
Alpine District currently receives $1,123,000 a year in property tax from the existing mall. The tax incentive plan proposes to give ASD either 25% or 50% (both have been discussed) of all property tax increase, leaving the original $1.1 million still coming in to the district. The incentive is only for the infrastructure, as ASD does not participate in residential or commercial properties. There is no “giving” of district money to anyone, any way.
This is not a backroom deal made by smarmy “suits” determined to rob the public of their fair share. These are conclusions drawn by fine administrators with good business sense. It appears to be a win-win: the incentive helps the business grow, and even though we get a small part, a small part of a lot is better than all of nothing. And of course in twenty years, we get the whole she-bang.
These are the flaws I see in the reasoning.
1. It is economic engineering, human beings peering into the next twenty years and making informed guesses, but guesses just the same.
2. It is based on false principles—the correct economic principle being allowing the free market to function, well, freely.
3. It violates two of the items on the ASD criterion for CDA’s (or RDA’s, or whatever initials we come up with)
- We do not move money around the district. At the Orem City Council meeting, where all the Good Old Boys were explaining to us obtuse citizens, there was a lot of talk about competing with “up north,” occasionally even citing specifically Lehi’s attracting businesses. The outline at the Board discussion listed bringing out-of-state money, but the reality is there was a lot of fuss about the north end of the county. So, as a government entity we are picking winners and losers
- We ask the unanswerable question (and guess at the answer), “Would the business go without us?” The feeling expressed was that it probably would, but not as quickly, therefore we would not get even our smaller share of property tax valuation as fast. But a cruise around the current mall shows the older area under busy construction all over the place, and the newer areas, including Costco, the theater, etc., are bustling already. Orem City website is continuously welcoming new merchants. The mall is already going without us.
Our discussion at the September 9 Board meeting included, “What do we have to lose?” meaning would we rather have a small piece of the cake or no cake at all? My response was that I am not a gambler, especially with the tax-payers’ money, but since we have to make a call I am going with the principle of the free market knowing what is best. I choose 100% of the property tax growth free enterprise will engineer, all on its own, versus one-half to one-fourth of what the “suits” are declaring we will get. It is not that I do not see the value to the district as well as to the community of the revitalization of Orem, it is that I do not believe there is a right way to do the wrong thing. And the tax incentive for University Place is the wrong thing.
