Comments on: Reviving TIF in California http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=6901 Dedicated to the sunset of government planning Fri, 24 May 2013 20:18:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: C. P. Zilliacus http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=6901&cpage=1#comment-311599 C. P. Zilliacus Mon, 10 Sep 2012 03:26:46 +0000 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=6901#comment-311599 In other words, redevelopment districts would still be able to steal money from fire districts, water districts, sewer districts, and other property-tax dependent entities, but not from schools.

Not if the water and sewer districts are separate from local government (in the form of a public or private utility), so that the politicians are not directly in control of the water/sewer budget – and thus unable to grant residents of favored projects some type of discounted water service.

]]> By: Sandy Teal http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=6901&cpage=1#comment-311236 Sandy Teal Sat, 08 Sep 2012 14:39:33 +0000 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=6901#comment-311236 If they exempt school from TIF, aren’t they admitting that the TIF induced development imposes increased costs on taxpayers? So doesn’t that undercut the whole theory of TIF?

]]> By: LazyReader http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=6901&cpage=1#comment-311006 LazyReader Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:36:35 +0000 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=6901#comment-311006 Taking money from schools. Not that I support TIF, but maybe they should take money from schools. You know there is a correlation between per student spending and student performance. A negative one. California is 47th in Science education alone. They have a problem with high per student spending. They’re lower now but still pretty high.

]]>