https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me_1Jw6kN50

It only took Lloyd companies 13 years to fulfill a promise (13 YEARS!) why wouldn’t they deserve a TIF?

Since the completion of Phillips to the Falls in 2004, significant investment of public and private dollars has occurred in the Uptown area. In recent years the City has made land available, resulting in several million dollars of private investment. This development will be constructed for an estimated cost of $43.5 million and will provide further economic benefits for our community including $400,000 to $500,000 in new property taxes paid each year. The City administration is supporting a Tax Increment Financing District for the project ($4.1 Million proposed).

Besides the fact that the developer drug their feet for 13 years and left the city holding the bag (and the land) the city council has NOT approved this project, and certainly has not approved a TIF. In fact, many on the council had NO CLUE a TIF was being proposed.

As far as I am concerned, since the developer was SUPPOSED to buy and develop this land 13 years ago, as they promised in front of a full council chambers (I was there) any discounts on property tax revenue should have ran out a long, long, long time ago. They were supposed to be paying on this plot of land for the last 13 years, and now they have the nerve to ask for a TIF as the taxpayers held this plot of land for them, for 13 years, at NO COST?

NO WAY!

I said Phillips to the Falls was Munson’s folly, and it continues to not disappoint being a money pit for taxpayers as developers continue to ask for corporate welfare. If the mayor is truly serious about ending subsidies, he can start right now with this project.

20 Thoughts on “Probably another ugly loft building (Pretty Much)

  1. The D@ily Spin on August 1, 2017 at 11:49 am said:

    Hopefully, the next mayor will get the city out of the real estate business. A 4 million TIF and it goes to the only city projects developer (Aquatics Center, Admin Building). It’s not rigged, it’s criminal and worthy of federal investigation.

  2. Speaking of “ugly loft buildings,” I am afraid this phenomenon is not unique to Sioux Falls. Wherever you travel now, you see the same architecture. There is no originality any more. Cities and towns use to have their own uniqueness, which spoke of their local culture. But all modern construction today speaks of an uniformity or conformity, that is and illustrates the mentality, that you need to be a team player and not an individual or an “agitator.”

    This conformity is not unique to urban settings either. You see it also in our residential areas too. Where housing has become a landscape of taupe homes. Where the only choice is the boldness of the hue and whether you will choose to have a white or a black SUV parked out in front of your home.

    The continual loss of mom and pop architectural firms probably plays a part in this phenomenon, as the greater corporate mindset, that if it works let us go with it, and that duplication is cheaper than new ideas and plans further dictates this mindset my guess is. But I find this sad, because architecture is a form of art. But like conventional art, we enjoy a Mona Lisa, but I question if we could ever enjoy Mona Lisas.

    But I will say this, that when I travel to other towns (….In my black SUV, I might add 😉 ) and find construction quite similar to what I find in Sioux Falls, it does lessen a feeling of home sickness though, because wherever I go now days, home seems to travel with me….

  3. The D@ily Spin on August 1, 2017 at 11:55 am said:

    How much more debt can Huether create? With sales tax down, where do the millions come from?

  4. Yep another handout for the already wealthy. When the the tax payers cleans up the site, the TIF is no longer needed.

    Just curious, many of you on this blog bitch about urban sprawl yet you complain about “another ugly loft”. Which way with the liberal compass spin you on this item?

  5. edit…which way will the

  6. How can Lloyds build an apartment complex with “250 underground parking spaces” when we all know that the area around the falls is solid granite bedrock just below the surface.

  7. Kelley on August 1, 2017 at 2:36 pm said:

    I think some of you might need to brush up on what TIF is; here’s a helpful video. It’s more of a tax break for a few years (without losing any current tax revenues), not an actual loan – there aren’t any funds going into the project from the city. From what I understand, the site is very contaminated.
    https://youtu.be/jhC6K40XK8s

  8. l3wis on August 1, 2017 at 4:07 pm said:

    I would like to thank the Lloyd Companies employee for the refresher course on TIF’s. I am well aware of how they work.

    A couple of things. The city has owned this property for the past 13 years. NO property taxes have been paid on this property for that time period, so the projected $400-500K a year in property taxes won’t be paid for around ANOTHER 8-10 years from now ($4.1 million dollar TIF). This is money that the county, the school district and the city will NEVER see, ever. This isn’t for affordable housing either, this is for commercial space. One of the reasons COSTCO rejected their TIF was they couldn’t justify a TIF for a retail commercial property. That is the point I am trying to make. While a TIF doesn’t take any existing money from taxpayers it does give a for profit developer a huge discount on their taxes that really doesn’t benefit the public when it comes to affordable housing or public education. COSTCO had the integrity to understand this, does your employer?

  9. hornguy on August 1, 2017 at 4:35 pm said:

    So a community can agree to divert incremental tax revenues to public improvements to get blighted areas cleaned up, or continue to live with blighted, undervalued land downtown that’s an eyesore and drags valuations down, and makes your city look trashy.

    You can choose A. Or you can choose B.

    But this mythical unicorn of a third option, one in which private businesses show no regard for their budgets, pay for the reclamation costs on land they didn’t pollute, and then build luxury apartments that they rent out for $375 a month to people lined up for dinner over at the Banquet – that world doesn’t exist. Sorry.

    At a projected $400-500k a year in taxes, the increment on this district will be paid off in just over a decade. In the world of TIF, that’s downright speedy.

    Not saying there aren’t examples of the city overusing TIF. That project right across from the Pavilion is probably a good example of that. But your alternative is to have developers carving up more green space on the edge of town because it’s not polluted and the land is dirt cheap.

    It’s not complicated. Successful developers do projects where they can make money, and don’t do projects where they can’t. At the end of the day, there’s not enough interest in development downtown that TIF isn’t necessary to make it happen.

  10. l3wis on August 1, 2017 at 5:40 pm said:

    I could care less if developers make money or not. But my guess is they would still make money without the TIF because DT is HOT right now, and people want to live and work there.

    My issue with TIFs is the issue COSTCO had with them, taking away public education funding. When we are raising the tax on food a half a penny and the SF school district is implementing a $50 million dollar opt-out without the public voting on it, someone, anyone should be questioning a $4.1 million dollar TIF.

  11. The D@ily Spin on August 1, 2017 at 8:30 pm said:

    How many blog names does the corrupt city attorney have? In this case it’s Kelley.

  12. Not paying taxes on your new property is a gift from the tax payer unless your the morally corrupt wealthy person receiving it.

    it’s OK that Loyds gets a break on their taxes because the site is “contaminated” but screw the 2 job working single mother who can only afford a 100 year old firebox. She needs to pay full price on her taxes. I’m sure the rent on Loyds new dump cap will be real cheap because it’s built on a “dirty site”.

    Your a special kind of dirtbag to believe a wealthy developer needs a tax break for property that has a view of the Falls.

  13. Here are some talking points for you folks who insist on blathering each public input session.

    Did Lloyds pay full price for the property? Hell no. Lloyds paid a price based on condition, therefore the cost of cleanup is already paid for by the taxpayers.

    Would you buy a car that needs a new engine? Now ask the county for a free tags because you purchased a car with a bad engine.

    Every councilor who received a campaign donation from Lloyds should have to recuse themselves on these TIF decisions.

  14. l3wis on August 2, 2017 at 1:21 pm said:

    Not to mention that the city sat on and held this land for 13 years for Lloyd, tax free and interest free. Phillips to the Falls was based on a promise from Lloyd and others that they would develop the land ‘within a couple of years’. As far as I am concerned, the TIF conversation was over years ago when Lloyd backed out of the original proposal.

  15. l3wis on August 2, 2017 at 1:22 pm said:

    “Every councilor who received a campaign donation from Lloyds should have to recuse themselves on these TIF decisions.”

    In other words only Stehly and Starr could vote on it.

  16. Rufusx on August 3, 2017 at 8:04 am said:

    I suppose it could continue to just sit there empty. Have it your way.

  17. Rufusx on August 3, 2017 at 8:06 am said:

    TIF =/= NOT paying taxes. It is dedicating taxes PAID to a specific civic improvement, vs. the general fund.

  18. l3wis on August 3, 2017 at 8:10 am said:

    Considering there was 5 developers that responded to the RFP, I don’t think it was going to sit there much longer, with or without a TIF, as I mentioned, DT development is HOT right now and at a premium.

    ‘Civic Improvement’ – LMFAO, that’s a new one. Not sure how it benefits the city. There are tons of empty lots that are annexed into the city that need redevelopment.

  19. anominous on August 3, 2017 at 9:55 am said:

    Dunno if anyone here has seen it, but there is a really cool old steel building on that spot, probably gonna get torn down. Some guys are selling some odds and ends out of it now. It has old cast steel trusses. Bye bye, cool old sioux falls.

Post Navigation