09/11/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Aocointabilit~ often is mi~i~. With taxt~yers ~ot k~ what is they have ~o way of holdi~ elected llzbiic officials for their actions. The risk is too high that m~re assistar~e than needed will be provided. ~r~ ~yst~n of public assistar~e for private real estate development has ~me risk that more l~lp is given than is needed. But the present syst-, carries too much risk. City goverrm~mts do not have enough inosntives to restrict tl~ size of their offers. In fa~t, be~use of indirect finar~ing, city governs axe t-mpted to offer as ~uch as they legally (mn in order to minimize risk of losirg the prospective developer. Scme city 9overnments do mot even cc~t-m.nlate '.'walk-away': positior~ in negotiation, fearirg that if they don'.t put all potential assistance ~ the table, neigh~x~irg cities will offer the assistance and g~in the develo~=_nt. They have not realized that developers know ~hat ~mn be offered. They have not msasured carefully enough t]~ o~sequenmes of losing a develop~e__nt. They have been so ~erned about their percepticm that '.~ut fo~': their assistar~e, th~ develoim~ent would not have occurred, that they may have failed to ask, ':so ~hat?': It is possible that in s__~_~ ~ases only tl~ city'.s power of oondemnation r~------d be utilized to assemble the lar~, with no public subsidy. Yet few e.~ .mples exist where a city government ~e~med the land without also writirg down the cost to the private buyer. In negotiations city governments have not cor~_ntrated er~ on spelling out what they want zrom de~elopers, as cuntrasted with the emphasis gi~_n to deciding how much to give developers. For example, scum city 9over~ do not put fc~th proposals of their own for reeoverirg their subsidies, or parts thereof, over the lon9 run. Gonseguently, an cpim~rtunity f~r reoov~rir~ investment my be lost. ~ de~lopers syr~licate their publicly-assisted real estate investments for large profits, nc~e of which goes to repayir~ the public for its assistance. Public officials become caught ~p in the enthusiasm for the tangible results of development ar~ seduced into giving ~ too much. Because the oosts to the officials of proceedir~ with development axe so iow or r~x~xistent, the heady benefits of seeirg t~ buildings rise bias decisior~ in favor of proceedin~ with development no matter what Too mu~h. emphasis is given to real estate devel~t.as a .way to create eoor~m~c 9rowth. Sustainable growth in an urban area is affected mainly by ac=ess to markets, aoces~ to essential production ar~ m~?ketimg skills, availability of ~nture capital fimancing, ar~ other resouroes. ~ estate development is mc~e a result of eoc~cmic growth, not its