Comments on: TIF & Crony Capitalism

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:04:45 +0000

Nothing solid to comment on, just more blabbering, nonsensical, accusations, attempting to deflect from issues.

TexOk, When You make comments that you don’t seem to care about the Constitution, that seems leftist.
Juvenile is intellectual?

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:09:13 +0000

I mean you’re a bumbling ignoramus. And I’m sure Dan …can back me on this.

110%.

By: TexanOkie

TexanOkie — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:52:29 +0000

I resorted to the juvenile because that’s all that seems to get to you, on an intellectual and practical level. I will say, though, and I am not the first in this little soirée to take things off point and focus on personal. You spend a lot of time pointing out my lack of understanding without illustrating it with evidence, as you suggest I should do. I noticed this at our last confrontation, too.

Eminent domain and TIFs can be abused, there’s no doubt about it, and people should keep a close, watchful eye on such practices to make sure such abuses are minimized. In the context of the political and development philosophy illustrated by the title of this entire blog, wanting to get rid of TIFs is perfectly understandable, and I don’t hold it against the A-P at all. In fact, I often sympathize with his intents.

Which brings about the whole “you and your lefties” comment. I’m not a lefty. That’s something else Dan can back up. “I’ll go with ‘Premature Presumptive Assumptions’ for $700, please, Alex.”

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:15:23 +0000

Why resort to juvenile, baseless insults when you have proven wrong?
It’s natural that you will side with others who miss points.
What the specifics on your claim of idiocy & ignorance?
Listen, it’s normal procedure to back points with evidence.
You & your lefties cohorts omit that part (elaboration with valid reasons & facts) of trying to be persuasive or make points.

What & how planners do, you say?
Why did you switch topics, to the “purpose” of planning?
The end justifies the means?
So, it doesn’t matter if property rights are violated & tax money is diverted for private use, if there are good intentions?

Why do you think eminent domain should be ignored?
It’s to bad that planners & most politicians don’t understand the Constitution & economics.

By: TexanOkie

TexanOkie — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:57:22 +0000

Scott, you’re an idiot. And I don’t mean this as a snide insult. I mean you’re a bumbling ignoramus. And I’m sure Dan and Hman can back me on this. At least Randal understands what it is we (meaning planners) do and how we do it.

“Violate eminent domain”… hahaha!

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 04:24:38 +0000

TexOK,
My statement did not mean that all TIFs violate eminent domain.
I’m not sure why you thought “all” or in absolute terms.
English lesson: in definitions, “are” does not mean the same or equal.

Some TIFs also have other unconstitutional elements.
That point was include in 1st sentence about that.
Typing in () usually means an example, otherwise the sentence structure would be different, if that was the main/only point.

Not sure why you are nitpicking about your lack of understanding. What’s your point? Do you have problems comprehending, like Dam & Hman?

Do you think it’s fair for the gov to take private property (w/ compensation, could be BMR), for private use & then subsidize the new owner with money from taxpayers & then divert some tax revenue form ordinary gov services?

By: TexanOkie

TexanOkie — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:43:33 +0000

I don’t know, Scott… Maybe it was because you said TIFs are unconstitutional, then put eminent domain in parentheses immediately following it. You then proceeded to give a whole paragraph arguing about the proper definition of public benefit/use as it described in eminent domain cases. Public use/direct benefit are usually not required for TIF districts, unless you count attracting investment to certain areas, and with TIFs, local governments don’t actually seize anyone’s property rights or ownership.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:08:46 +0000

No statement was made that TIF & eminent domain are the same.
Not sure why you thought that.
I typed Most TIFs are actually unconstitutional (eminent domain).
Maybe, review what meaning of “are”, and within the context/sentence of how it’s used.

By: TexanOkie

TexanOkie — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:00:38 +0000

Scott:

TIF =/= eminent domain (and neither are unconstitutional). Even though the City of New London was using both to pursue broader development goals, that is the only connection between the two practices, and the Kelo case was definitely an abuse of the power, in spirit if not in technicality. Your arguments about public use vs. public benefit are definitely needed in eminent domain debates. But, again, eminent domain and TIF are not the same, and their only relation is that they are tools that local governments have in certain states to pursue broader objectives.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:02:20 +0000

TIFs distort the market, as gov often does. Tax revenues are diverted from basic gov services to support new development, which actually increases property prices.

Most TIFs are actually unconstitutional (eminent domain).
Interpretation has changed “public use” to “public benefit”, even before Kelo. The “public benefit” is often not there, when measuring all factors, with a big advantage going to developers.

The definition of “blight” is often distorted too.

Competition between municipalities is good, but at the expense of their current residents, businesses & the future is bad. Similar problems occur in pursuit of sales tax dollars, rather than residential building.