Development

So are TIF’s political?

A restaurant owner claims her freedom of speech rights are being violated for political reasons.

August 08, 2013

A small restaurant owner in Belleville, Ill., filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on Monday claiming her city unconstitutionally ordered her to remove a sign from her window that sarcastically thanks city government.

Dianne Rogge, owner of the Pour Haus restaurant, posted a big sign in her business’s front window that read “No TIF for us, Tks B’ville.” Rogge claims that her request for $15,000 in tax increment financing— a form of public financing used to spur economic development—was rejected because she had openly supported Belleville mayor Mark Eckert’s opponent, Phil Elmore. She had hoped to use the TIF money to renovate her business.

City employees sent Rogge letters in June requesting she remove the sign or face a $500-a-day penalty. They cited a city ordinance that requires business owners to get a permit and pay a fee to put up signage. The sign, which has been up since June 5, has racked up more than $31,000 in fines, Rogge told a St. Louis television station.

Rogge’s 20-page complaint, filed in federal court by attorney Eric Rhein, says Belleville’s sign ordinance is unconstitutional and is enforced in a discriminatory fashion. It claims that a former city attorney had posted political signs in his window that the city never forced him to remove. “They have to follow the First Amendment no matter who they are,” Rhein told the Belleville News-Democrat. “It reigns supreme and political signs are afforded the highest amount of protection.”

The lawsuit seeks to prevent the city from enforcing its ordinance, monetary damages to Rogge, attorney’s fees and punitive damages of $50,000, the local paper reported.

Tiffy-Taffy

Last night as the city council was posed to vote on the new TIF application process (Item#21, FF: 23:00) a very nervous Q-Tip Smith, director of parking, community development, and golden P’s, had to try to explain why there should not be transparency and disclosures when applying for TIF’s. This happened after councilor Jamison offered an amendment (that he later rescinded) that said there needs to be disclosure as to who is applying for TIF’s (he borrowed the language from Rapid City).

Ironically Smith brought up a representative from Lloyd companies (one of the biggest receivers of TIF’s in our city) and Mike Crane (who received TIF #11 that had to be signed by director Cotter instead of the mayor-hmm). To argue against disclosure. Investors, Investors, Investors, blah, blah, blah.

Of course Staggers and Anderson said it best; if you are looking for government assistance or taking advantage of a government program, disclosure and transparency should go along with that, Staggers went even further and accused TIF benefactors of having ‘political connections’ (Gee, is that why Director Cotter had to sign one of the TIF’s instead of the mayor 🙂

Of course Councilor Erpenbach poo-poo’d the amendment (not sure what her pro-censorship, anti-transparency stance is about anyway, it’s just becoming weirder by the day).

What I found even more ironic is that as a citizen I have to state my full name before I can even address the city council in a video-recorded public meeting for 5 minutes, but if I am asking for millions in the form of a tax break, I can remain anon until that application is approved.

This isn’t the last you have heard of this, while the new process passed w/o the disclosure, several of the councilors agreed this will be revisited.

Smith was also asked why it could not be deferred Tuesday night for another month, he mentioned an urgency about another TIF that was fast approaching (my assumption is that the developer who is asking to build condos between 13th and 14th on Phillips Avenue is asking for a TIF to tear down Sushi Masa, but that is just an educated guess).

The graphic below shows the current TIF’s the city has granted so far (the italicized Dunham TIF’s represent a company that is in transition)

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Is it time the TIF program be expanded (changed) to where it is really needed?

As many know, Detroit Lewis isn’t a fan of TIF’s, but I am not exactly opposed to ALL TIF’s. A TIF to build a luxury hotel or condos just doesn’t make sense to me, but to clean up neighborhoods and offer affordable housing, now that makes sense. It seems the SPECIALS in town have got a corner on city hall and totally backwards when it comes to TIFs. My new favorite reporter Atyeo at the AL did a fine story of how the city is helping out the ‘little guy’ for cleaning up affordable housing;

He learned about the city’s rehab program through a mailer. Property owners can loan up to $25,000 over five years with 3 percent interest. The first six months of the loan are interest-free, and no payments are required.

This is a wonderful program and similar to a program I took advantage of after purchasing my home, community development. I believe my interest rate was either 2 or 3% to fix my windows and rain gutters. While the program has it’s merits I have often wondered if TIF’s would be a better way to clean up neighborhoods and affordable housing. NOW don’t quote me on this, but I kind of remember Darrin Smith mentioning there would have to be a change in State Law to make TIF’s available to private property owners. But what makes an individual who owns several rental properties different then a large scale developer? If this person is willing to take a risk to fix up existing properties to make them better why not offer them a property tax break (TIF) and pass that savings on to the renter?

TIF’s are good, if used properly, and I believe this would be a great way of using them, but hey we don’t need any more affordable housing, just more condos and luxury hotels 🙁

The DT SF 2025 committee, A Stacked Deck?

Image: siouxfalls.org

First let’s talk about the mysterious announcement of this top secret committee, the first press release put out about the group was on Monday, September 30, 2013 12:16 PM by Q-Tip Smith. The next press release was put out Tuesday, October 1, 2013 11:32 AM, about 2 hours before the press conference. I guess they felt a need to spring this on the citizens of SF like it is some grand surprise.

In all fairness, the city did say they want our input (just not on the sooper-secret committee);

Over the next 12 to 15 months, numerous opportunities will be available for the citizens of Sioux Falls to provide their input on the future vision of downtown. A wide variety of public meetings, community-wide events, and a number of committees will be established to seek input for the vision of downtown.

Let’s look at the committee the MAYOR has appointed;

Brendan Reilly, Attorney

Daniel Doyle, Attorney

Eric McDonald, co-founder of a medical document company

Gene McGowan, venture capital

Glen Koch, Owner of DT restaurant

Jennifer Schmidtbauer, Director of Development for major DT SF manufacturer

Jerry Nachtigal Public affairs for major SF CC company/bank

Jessie Schmidt, Co-Chair of SF Planning Commission

Joe Kirby, He’s a Kirby (He’s the guy who lives here part-time and tried to sneak a provision in through the Charter Revision Commission to give the mayor more power)

Larry Toll, Co-President of Washington Pavilion

Terri Schuver, Owner of DT gallery

Michelle Erpenbach, City Councilor (I heard she never informed the rest of the council she was going to be on the committee, or at least some of them were unaware of her appointment)

Paul Ten Haken, owns a media company (his company is the one that came up with the new DT parking concept and the motto, “Look for the Gold P.” He also has a problem with his employees talking about political affiliations on their personal FB pages.

Don’t get me wrong, the committee needs to be comprised of SOME community leaders, but it is lacking actual ‘Downtowners’ – people who live, work and own businesses DT (tri-fecta). When a community wants to develop a ‘vision’ about a sector of it’s town, they really need people who have the best interest of all citizens and a deep knowledge of history and the past, moving forward you always want to avoid the mistakes of the past. I would think one of the owners of Minerva’s or the owners of Zandbroz and Vishnu Bunny would have made fantastic members of this committee. Remember a developmental ‘vision’ needs to include ‘the little things’ not just major projects like hotels, condos and insurance buildings. The secret of making our DT even more successful will be by connecting the whole community to this ‘vision’. I am just not sure how many of these members have a connection with downtown as a whole and the kind of people it attracts. IMO this is about making a small amount of people lots of money developing the DT vision, which is fine if the whole community will share in this richness.

The findings will be very interesting, but I have a feeling the rest of us will be left out – maybe they will tell us about it in a press conference.

Do developers in Sioux Falls really need taxpayer incentives?

So what do the ‘poor’ developers in town think about this?

Sioux Falls building permits continue on record pace.

As predicted, total construction value for the year has already topped more than half a billion dollars. From January through September, the total construction value of permits issued came in at $502,143,850.

New manufacturing accounts for $23 million and commercial construction for nearly $36 million. The number of apartments also outpaces single family homes. New residential housing totals $208.7 million.

The largest year for construction activity was in 2007 with $523 million in building permits issued. Sioux Falls is on track to break that record by the end of the year.

Don’t get me wrong, I think this is fantastic news for our city and developers. It seems the economy has bounced back, for them. So as a city government we need to ask some important questions since development is doing so well.

• Should we raise platting fees so developers are putting in the 40-50% they promised originally? (Taxpayers have put in almost 13x more then developers since the 2nd penny got raised to a full penny).

• Should we limit TIF’s to affordable housing, instead of for luxury condos, big box stores and luxury hotels?

• Should there be a public amenity tax implemented on development that benefits from publicly funded frontages (River Greenway) As Don Kearney, Parks Director recently said about the RG, “The public/private property lines are virtually seamless (sic).

• Should we continue to annex land and expand our infrastructure when there is already a lot of land within the city limits that needs to be developed or redeveloped?

• Do our zoning laws really need to be drastically changed to Shape Places, but instead be broken up in to smaller zoning laws?

It seems development is moving along swimingly in Sioux Falls, now let’s tweak it so ALL of the citizens in SF can benefit from this economic development, not just the developers.