Post in Shhh!... Legislature's $371 Subsidy Undermines Central Cities

May 01 17:56 UTC

The one issue that seems to be ignored by this discussion is the jobs that will
be created.  Isn't it going to be great that the proposed subsidy would create
so many jobs?

What a bunch of hog wash.  Yes any construction project will create a number of
jobs that pay great wages.  These jobs last only as long as the construction
lasts.  Yet every time something like this goes before a Legislative Committee
we see news accounts of the various Construction trades members packing hearing
rooms to witness and/or testify to the new jobs the project would create.

I know that any new store, service, or activity will need employees. So there
will be new jobs created when the project is finished.  But these will be,
probably, just above wage part time jobs that teens will take.  These are not
good jobs, except for retirees and workers new to the work force.

My point is that the Construction unions attempt to make this a jobs issue,
when in fact, the only real jobs being created are construction jobs.  I
certainly understand why they support these projects.  But I question why there
isn't any legislator willing to call it what it is, pandering to the labor
constituency.

Based on their arguments, we should mortgage the state so they can always have
work.

Bob DeBoer <<email obscured>> wrote: Anytime we subsidize
developments that compete with other developments, we run the risk of devaluing
what we already have because the market may not have the capacity to support
the new, subsidized development other than simply shifting capacity from
elsewhere in the region. Rosedale did get a major reduction in the value of its
property and paid less in property taxes and the MOA was part of the reason.
There was work done in the late 1990s (which I need to locate and review) that
showed a 5-20 percent reduction in sales at other malls across the region.
Southdale was the hardest hit.

What is particularly loathsome about the current subsidy proposal is the use of
the fiscal disparities pool to fund a parking ramp to the tune of $200 million
so that everyone can have "free" parking. This is a gross violation of the
purpose of regional tax base sharing and will set an extremely bad precedent if
it occurs. Since the pool is meant to share tax base and reduce competition,
use of it would essentially force existing businesses to pay for their
competitor and devalue their own property at the same time. With the current
vacancy rates in our downtowns, this is truly destructive public policy.

The Senate tax bill has the fiscal disparities provision, the House does not,
so this is not a done deal. Legislators are focused on the construction jobs,
but House Tax Chair Ann Lenczweski has been politically courageous in her
opposition. She asked to see the developers books at a hearing last week and is
trying to get at how much subsidy is really needed.

The Citizens League (who I work for) strongly opposes this provision and you
can read more about it at www.citizensleague.org.

Bob DeBoer
Merriam Park, St. Paul
Info about Bob DeBoer: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/bobdeboer

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/68JTA2k5ZRjtp9DpbJ3AXz