No rc things are different for just wal-mart. it were wal-mart they would have to buy the land at full price, get no TIF incentives, build the road to the store and reconfigure all the roads around them. Build all utilities to the store and any stores around them in the future, build retention ponds no other store has had to build, build a big huge berm that no other store has had to build, and not allo wanyone to park in THEIR parking lot even though no other stores around them have the same rule imposed on them. Then they would have to fight tooth and nail to get a liquer license even though we regularly have ratty ghetto bars popping up around town. Thats the incentice plan just for wal-mart though. I can't imagine that wal-mart having to go through all that would at all discourage future business growth in the area. lol

While sometimes controversial, the post on July 29th at this site is interesting http://rocknetroots.blogspot.com/

Personally, I think that leaving out the working land should have been considered by the Council. We have plenty of empty industrial space that should be filled first.

ryczok, you're right in that it is a trade-off. Keep in mind that the practical effect of most TIFs is actually an increase in the local tax base, though, and if a vacant lot becomes a factory or a mall, clearly the community benefits. Not just in higher property taxes, but in payroll and retail taxes. The money is not lost, either -- it is reinvested in the district. But it is true that some of that is in the form of loans and grants to businesses.
.
There are certainly cases where the giveaways amount to more than the gain. But that would be the case whether TIFs exist or not.

I am interested in knowing more about TIF's.. From what I am reading it appears that at TIF is a tool to encourage development but to do so gives tax incentives such as freezing property taxes for a substantial periods of time (one article I read said 20 – 30 years). Does this sound like a good idea? I realize most states use the TIF system to varying degrees but to me it sounds like Doyle economics 101, a.k.a give away the farm and let the tax payers pick up the tab! Don’t get me wrong, economic growth is important and necessary but where do you draw the line and say “we can’t afford this”? Just as an example should a company like Wal-Mart be allowed the same tax exceptions because they move their store as a new employer to town would be allowed?

Since the Gazette does not seem to want anyone to know what a TIF is... Here you go!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_increme...