Even though I'm a planner
By Rick Brady
Even though I'm a planner and do not necessarily think that property rights are sacrosanct (important yes, but the 5th Amendment does provide a due process clause), this case is absurd!
Tax sharing between cities and commercial developers has been around in California quite a while. Because of the state-local fiscal regime in this state (largely due to Prop 13), a developer will pit one city against another city and some cities have negotiated agreements to give a portion of the sales tax revenue generated by the project to the developer should they decide to locate in their jurisdiction.
One of the biggest impediments to bix-box retail is increasing paucity of sites large enough and suitable for the Super Wal Marts, Fry's Electronics, Costco's, etc., particularly within urbanized areas. If the Court rules against property rights in this case, the temptation for cash strapped local jurisdictions will be immense.
Big box commercial or industrial developers would come to a City Council and make an offer: "Give us these 25 acres and you will see X increment from property taxes and Y increase in sales and hotel tax revenue." The City will counter, "Yes, but what about the consituents we displace!" To that, the developer will say, "How about we give you $Z up front and $V each year to ease your worries?"
Our entire local government fiscal system is whack. It's perhaps the worst in CA because of Prop 13, but it seems to me that the most efficient and equitable system for any metropolitan area is one in which revenue is collected and distributed regionally.
Why have a system where it is in the City's best fiscal interests to condemn property for a Super Wal Mart?
Another thing this case reminds me of:
Cottonwood Christian Center v. City of Cypress. In that case, Cypress tried to use redevelopment powers of eminent domain to condemn land purchased by a church org for development of a mega church. The City wanted to build a Costco instead. What was their reason? Tax dollars and "economic development." Sham... The difference here is the Cottonwood folks were protected by the Religious Land Use and Instiutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
Even though I'm a planner and do not necessarily think that property rights are sacrosanct (important yes, but the 5th Amendment does provide a due process clause), this case is absurd!
Tax sharing between cities and commercial developers has been around in California quite a while. Because of the state-local fiscal regime in this state (largely due to Prop 13), a developer will pit one city against another city and some cities have negotiated agreements to give a portion of the sales tax revenue generated by the project to the developer should they decide to locate in their jurisdiction.
One of the biggest impediments to bix-box retail is increasing paucity of sites large enough and suitable for the Super Wal Marts, Fry's Electronics, Costco's, etc., particularly within urbanized areas. If the Court rules against property rights in this case, the temptation for cash strapped local jurisdictions will be immense.
Big box commercial or industrial developers would come to a City Council and make an offer: "Give us these 25 acres and you will see X increment from property taxes and Y increase in sales and hotel tax revenue." The City will counter, "Yes, but what about the consituents we displace!" To that, the developer will say, "How about we give you $Z up front and $V each year to ease your worries?"
Our entire local government fiscal system is whack. It's perhaps the worst in CA because of Prop 13, but it seems to me that the most efficient and equitable system for any metropolitan area is one in which revenue is collected and distributed regionally.
Why have a system where it is in the City's best fiscal interests to condemn property for a Super Wal Mart?
Another thing this case reminds me of:
Cottonwood Christian Center v. City of Cypress. In that case, Cypress tried to use redevelopment powers of eminent domain to condemn land purchased by a church org for development of a mega church. The City wanted to build a Costco instead. What was their reason? Tax dollars and "economic development." Sham... The difference here is the Cottonwood folks were protected by the Religious Land Use and Instiutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
posted by Editor Facts & Myths at 12:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home