This morning’s Press had a great letter to the editor, titled “A Tall Tales of Taxes”, by Len Crosby. It is well worth the read. Len is the past Chairman of the Post Falls Urban Renewal Board, so he knows the subject. He’s also a banker, so he knows money, lending and debt structures. Len is NOT a fan of using Urban Renewal money for residential development, and particularly calls out LCDC, Dover and even Post Falls. Here’s an excerpt:
“Indeed, in light of our current abundance of home and condo foreclosures, it is interesting to reflect that the majority of the property tax money we have contributed to the existing Urban Renewal Agencies has gone into residential and condominium development in Dover, along Sherman Street in Coeur d’Alene, in Riverstone, in Mill River (yes, we did get a call center . . .) and even in the East Post Falls district in Post Falls. Residential developments supplemented by tax dollars from homeowners who can’t afford to purchase the high-end residential properties that they are subsidizing! ”
Len’s letter is in response to the June 20th article in the Press by the unabashedly pro-urban renewal cheerleader, John Austin. John makes his living from urban renewal. Len points out one of John Austin’s (questionable) methods:
“…(John Austin) has been a strong proponent of the art of “shoe-stringing” a practice used by many of those agencies to expand an urban renewal district by attaching it (by a narrow “shoestring” along a road) to an area that is experiencing growth, and taking the tax dollars created by that new growth to use to improve the original district.”
And Len also tells us the truth about LCDC’s new debt:
“The recent announcement of the sale of almost $17 million in bonds by LCDC simply put means that YOUR tax dollars will be going to repay that money, including interest…”
Don’t miss reading Len’s letter to the editor! Comments?
Many people that I know share Len’s beliefs. Urban renewal is not evil. The question is when will our Legislature pass new laws to reign in the unchecked abuses. Locally, LCDC still has unspent $$$ for Riverstone. This could explain the push for affordable housing at Riverstone before the commitment expires. After all, when all else fails sell the project as affordable or workforce housing. Does anyone see any of the promised Midtown housing?
Comment by Jim Brannon — June 23, 2011 @ 9:40 am
Mr. Crosby is an authority on urban renewal in Post Falls, but he has his facts wrong about Dover. I’ll comment on that in a future article.
In the meantime, here’s what he failed to ask me or any of the other Dover URA members, each of whom was troubled by his comments yesterday at their meeting in Dover: tax dollars did not go to the Dover developer for his infrastructure such as streets, water and sewer lines, sidewalks or any other improvements in the development. The developer has a reimbursement agreement for the $5 million he paid to upgrade the wastewater plant to DEQ standards and to expand it to 4,000 future hookups. His development is entitled to no more than 600 hookups so the city gets to offer the rest outside of Dover Bay. At $16,000 per hookup, that will be a windfall for the city.
Too, he is to be reimbursed for the four-bay fire station and water system improvements that have enhanced fire protection and fire flows for the entire city. He’s also to be paid back for paving the streets in old Dover. In fact, that’s the irony. Contrary to Mr. Crosby’s point, the developer is being paid back from his own tax dollars for improvements outside of his development, and not within it.
The developer also donated 800 feet of prime waterfront, which at the time was selling for 8,000 a front foot, for a public beach. He also built and donated a lodge style city hall on the waterfront. Again, no reimbursement for those public improvements.
As for shoestringing, it is common for development to occur outside of a deteriorated area and utilities are needed to reach out to those areas. The only way to connect the two is via roadways that are to be rebuilt with the new infrastructure, including utilities. Improvements can’t be made if those roadways are outside the urban renewal district. That’s why roadways are used to connect areas within the district.
I appreciate and encourage comments on urban renewal and especially want to hear from opponents as well as those in favor. It is best, however, to ensure accuracy when points are made so the best possible discourse on the issue can continue.
Comment by JohnA — June 23, 2011 @ 11:15 am
JohnA, such as the accuracy of the fact that URD’s raise taxes? Or is it different when URA supporters claim that they do not?
Comment by concerned citizen — June 23, 2011 @ 7:13 pm
“As for shoestringing, it is common for development to occur outside of a deteriorated area and utilities are needed to reach out to those areas.”
HMMMMMM, I thought UR was for blight? So much for that theory. It IS to create welfare for the wealthy.
Comment by concerned citizen — June 23, 2011 @ 7:16 pm
I have shown on several occasions, CC, that URDs do not raise taxes outside their boundaries. Unless you can show it to the contrary, I think we have to agree to disagree.
As far as so called ‘shoe stringing’, I would say that Mr. Crosby’s description of the reason for including streets is different from the actual reason, as I have depicted it. I am available to further discuss this, however, as optional opinions with facts are presented.
Comment by JohnA — June 23, 2011 @ 7:47 pm
JohnA, I think CC nailed you with your own statement in comment #4. Shoe-stringing is ok? I don’t think so. Cities can’t legally shoe string. Why should urban renewal be able to do so? Different reasons?…I bet you are ready to spin this differently!
Comment by mary — June 23, 2011 @ 8:45 pm
JohnA makes his living off of government endorsed and subsidized corporate welfare compliments of the taxpayer. Of course he is going to have his spin.
Comment by concerned citizen — June 23, 2011 @ 8:51 pm
JohnA, you have said on numerous occasions that “WEALTHY” developers would not be interested in investing without URA monies. What about us small business owners? Why not decrease OUR tax burden so that we may hire people from our own area for long term employment instead of temporary construction jobs that usually go to migratory opportunists?
Comment by concerned citizen — June 23, 2011 @ 8:57 pm
‘JohnA makes his living off of government endorsed and subsidized corporate welfare compliments of the taxpayer’
Actually, CC, I am semi-retired and work only a few hours a month with urban renewal districts in north Idaho. Good try, though.
And, while you’re at it, please explain the ‘corporate welfare’ statement. Thanks.
Comment by JohnA — June 24, 2011 @ 10:34 am
‘Actually, CC, I am semi-retired and work only a few hours a month with urban renewal districts in north Idaho. Good try, though.’
JohnA, you are one of the few these days that will have any retirement in site and you can thank us taxpayers for that.
‘And, while you’re at it, please explain the ‘corporate welfare’ statement. Thanks.’
Any time tax money is used to fund private enterprise that is in your own words “WEALTHY” investors is nothing less that corporate welfare. This is all done on the backs of every taxpayer down to the mimimum wage service worker.
Comment by concerned citizen — June 25, 2011 @ 1:01 pm