Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop
You misunderstand what the but-for actually is about.
The requirement is not that the specific proposed development would not occur but for the Tax Increment Financing. It is that economic development would not occur on the property without this assistance. Economic development most certainly would occur on the Lincoln Yards land. It may or may not be what you would like to see built - and would not be what Sterling Bay has planned, but that's not the point at all.
What we're talking about is a matter of the legislation. Cost-benefit analysis is a separate matter.
|
You seem to have completely missed my point.
Mr Downtown said with respect to the 78: "It's pretty unrealistic to expect it to develop but for the presence of a TIF." His point being that the 78 is a better candidate for a TIF since it passes the test.
I responded by saying the "but-for" test in its strictest interpretation is a stupid standard since every development, including the 78, should fail it.
The fact that the "but-for" test is often interpreted to mean that the TIF is only allowed if
no development of any kind--not just the particular project as proposed--would occur without the subsidy is
precisely the problem with it.
ALL parcels can eventually be developed to some extent without subsidies. If every single case fails the rule, the rule is itself a failure.
Does anyone really believe a huge parcel next to the CBD could never become valuable enough to be developable without some subsidies? In 30 or 50 years, when the CBD is bursting at the seams, it's not going to be worth it for a developer to invest more in local infrastructure?
[Of course, most people and lawmakers would not apply such a strict interpretation of the test in such cases. They just want to use that interpretation for a project they don't like, precisely because they know they can delay and shrink the project by cutting the subsidy.]