realerist & fine print, you both seem to have missed the point. The various economic models being used all have limitations and my point was that David Martin chose to focus on the cost-benefit analysis prepared by the EDC without mentioning the flaws of the City's fiscal impact model. The tone of your comments tells me that neither of you are interested in getting all of the story, just the parts that support your point of view. I'll admit that I'm not a big fan of City staff, but what I want David Martin and the PITCH to do is to handle the story in a professional, balanced and unbiased manner like the journalists they claim to be are supposed to do.
David Martin,
Did you think you were exposing something ne or did you and the editor figure you could just run another TIF story to bump up readership numbers? Either way, this story would've been much better if you had actually done some real research and approached the story in a balanced and unbiased manner. Instead, you opted for your usual half-assed hatchet job.
For the benefit of your readers, lets discuss the issues raised in your article. The EDC, which provides staff for KCMO's TIF Commission, prepares a cost-benefit analysis is run on an ecconomic model jointly-selected by the EDC and the City, so it's more than slightly ironic that the City is expressing concerns about the projections it is producing.
City staff, on the other hand, produces a fiscal impact model for those same TIF Plans. It, too, has its limitations. It purports to show the public costs (City only) associated with the TIF Plan, although City staff can't run the model without a consultant's assistance, nor can they explain the cost numbers assigned to the public services. Oh, and the fiscal impact model recognizes no revenues - only costs. This hardly seems like a fair or honest assessment.
So, is either approach the right one? Probably not. It is also important to remember that both produce projections, not cold, hard facts. Together, they provide information for the decision-makers. The vantage point of history will ultimately show us what happened.
You also raised the issue of displacement. The transfer of economic activity from one place to another is a reality; the question is how much displacement will take place. That question is, however, much hardr to answer. As far as sales tax revenues being displaced from one community to another is concerned is also a reality. It happens whether TIF is involved or not. The point is that when TIF is involved, 50% of the new sales tax revenues in the TIF Plan are captured by the TIF and are made available to pay for eligible project costs. This may include sales tax revenues displaced from other taxing jurisdictions, but would be very difficult to measure. For practical purposes, the best that can be done is to assume a percentage will be displaced sales and discount by that amount.
The next time you do a story, do your homework and cover the whole story in a balanced and unbiased manner. I know this will be quite a challenge for you, but try for your readers' sake.
David,
Another piece of "fair and balanced reporting" - NOT!
I will admit that the cost-benefit model used by the EDC is not perfect; however, it is the economic model that the City and the EDC jointly purchased and agreed to use. I'm sure that Jeff Yates failed to mention that little pertinent fact!
Of course, I'm also sure that you didn't ask too many questions (if any) about the City's fiscal impact model. Not that Jeff Yates or anyone else on his staff could explain it since it is both out-dated and so complicated and arcane that they had to have a consultant run it because they didn't know how to use it! The City's model acts as though money only comes in and goes out once; it does not reflect the possibility or reality of any "off-site benefits." This is the same model that City staff used to oppose doing anything with the Hawthorne at a PIEA meeting a couple of years ago - they said it would be better for the City financially if no rehabilitation took place!
So, either you're a journalist and bound by the code of ethics to be fair and unbiased or you're an editorialist who can say whatever they want. But, please don't masquerade as a journalist if you don't even want to try to do some real reporting!
Re: “TIF plans look good on paper because they’re not telling the whole story”
Sadia,
Are you telling me that you actually believe everything that David Martin has written in this article? David Martin has his own agenda and telling people only the parts of a story that support his agenda is one of his favorite topics. Articles that cast TIF and/or the EDC in a negative light attract readers, whether they are true or not. If the PITCH ever decides to become a serious newspaper with real reporters, things will change. Until then, all we get is this biased drivel.