Pamela said...
Gary and others -- I appreciate the point about the original good intentions of TIFs, and I admire the efforts of NCGB but I think they are fighting a losing battle. I believe that most subsidies (ethanol and sugar excepted) start out as noble efforts to rectify a perceived problem be it a market imbalance or a blighted community.
The problem is that these problems (market forces, blighted community) are generally temporary but the subsidy programs are permanent. Time and market forces tend to correct the problems irrespective of any subsidy program.
Example: some years ago when oil was so cheap that oil companies weren't doing new exploration, the U.S. government came up with a "subsidy" in the form of free drilling rights to encourage companies to do more drilling so that there would not be shortages in the future. Fast forward 10 or so years and oil companies are getting the equivalent of a $7 billion subsidy for drilling rights.
Not even Congress can undo this.
They put the program in place, oil companies entered into it in good faith, you can't take it back after the fact. I don't blame the oil companies. They were made a legitimate business offer and took it. I blame politicians and those who think that central planning is the answer.
It usually makes things worse.
If a neighborhood needs to improve schools, transportation, etc. then that community should lobby for funding for such through city (and/or state) budgets or outright tax increases.
School broke = $ to fix it. Fine. Subsidies, however, will always (without exception) take on a life of their own, and almost never provide $ for the things they were intended to.
Further, they are an invisible tax on the people and so it becomes impossible to say "lower taxes now that our schools are fixed" or whatever. By their very nature they will not be transparent.
Truly, we must say no to them and work to unravel them.
Think of them as a very bad investment.
If your retirement $ is in a bad stock and it keeps losing money month after month, year after year, what do you do? Hold on and *hope* it will turn around or sell and cut your losses before you have nothing left at all?
Note: The Rogers Park Review would like to thank Pamela for graciously allowing us to reprint her comments. We believe all of our neighbors have something important to add to our dialogue. If you, or someone you know, would like to add a voice to our discussions, contact us at TheRogersParkReview@Hotmail.com
Gary and others -- I appreciate the point about the original good intentions of TIFs, and I admire the efforts of NCGB but I think they are fighting a losing battle. I believe that most subsidies (ethanol and sugar excepted) start out as noble efforts to rectify a perceived problem be it a market imbalance or a blighted community.
The problem is that these problems (market forces, blighted community) are generally temporary but the subsidy programs are permanent. Time and market forces tend to correct the problems irrespective of any subsidy program.
Example: some years ago when oil was so cheap that oil companies weren't doing new exploration, the U.S. government came up with a "subsidy" in the form of free drilling rights to encourage companies to do more drilling so that there would not be shortages in the future. Fast forward 10 or so years and oil companies are getting the equivalent of a $7 billion subsidy for drilling rights.
Not even Congress can undo this.
They put the program in place, oil companies entered into it in good faith, you can't take it back after the fact. I don't blame the oil companies. They were made a legitimate business offer and took it. I blame politicians and those who think that central planning is the answer.
It usually makes things worse.
If a neighborhood needs to improve schools, transportation, etc. then that community should lobby for funding for such through city (and/or state) budgets or outright tax increases.
School broke = $ to fix it. Fine. Subsidies, however, will always (without exception) take on a life of their own, and almost never provide $ for the things they were intended to.
Further, they are an invisible tax on the people and so it becomes impossible to say "lower taxes now that our schools are fixed" or whatever. By their very nature they will not be transparent.
Truly, we must say no to them and work to unravel them.
Think of them as a very bad investment.
If your retirement $ is in a bad stock and it keeps losing money month after month, year after year, what do you do? Hold on and *hope* it will turn around or sell and cut your losses before you have nothing left at all?
Note: The Rogers Park Review would like to thank Pamela for graciously allowing us to reprint her comments. We believe all of our neighbors have something important to add to our dialogue. If you, or someone you know, would like to add a voice to our discussions, contact us at TheRogersParkReview@Hotmail.com
3 Comments:
I take it that online degree advisor got pulled in by "If your retirement $ is in a bad stock and it keeps losing money month after month, year after year, what do you do? Hold on and *hope* it will turn around or sell and cut your losses before you have nothing left at all?"
Now there's an idea...TIF funding for timeshares!
So there seems to be a dilemma here: work to abolish the State and Federal TIF acts, or deal with what we're stuck with, ie. misuse of TIF money.
Legislative reform is going to take a long time: coalition building, acceptble substitute, and blah blah blah.
How much time do you want to spend on that?
Just thinking out loud, folks.
i've read everyone's recent comments to some of the other posts and will respond here, so that we can possibly focus in one place on a common theme that seems to be repeated.
fargo don asked a good question. do we work individually or through an existing ncbg voice?
we could possibly work with ncbg to make their effort more effective and promote greater understanding among our neighbors.
we can also contact existing community groups who have obviously raised the same concerns we have, to create a "voting block" of concerned citizens to affect change at the voting booth.
pamela said "we should set aside our partisan differences" in order to unify our message. pamela, you are a gem. that message is at the very heart of the issue and the reason that this blogspace exists.
our dilemma tracks with all the concerns expressed in all the recent comments. how do we epand this message aside from the links and cooperation with our rp blog friends, to reach more of our neighbors?
Post a Comment
<< Home