Tanger outlet mall wants public money

The developers for the much-ballyhooed Tanger/Simon outlet mall proposed for southwest Mecklenburg County are seeking some $5 million in property tax rebates from the city and the county. The Charlotte City Council a few minutes ago voted unanimously to send the proposal to its Economic Development Committee, which meets Thursday.

(Update, Tuesday, Feb. 19: Read more about the request in this article in today’s Charlotte Observer. “Developer seeks $5 million in tax breaks for Steele Creek outlet mall.” For those who don’t see the physical newspaper, this was the biggest front-page headline, making it the lead Page 1 article.)

Attorney Jeff Brown, who represents the developers, told me the request is for $5.1 million, to be repaid over 10 years, plus 3.2 percent interest. In other words, the developer would be paid through the expected increase in property tax revenues if the shopping center is built. The site is in unincorporated Mecklenburg County, not yet inside the city limits, although it’s expected to be annexed through voluntary annexation.

It’s not unusual for the City Council to grant such arrangements, especially if a developer puts in infrastructure such as new street improvements. However, the county has been wary of entering such arrangements, especially for retail developments. One high-ranking county official said it would be the first time that sort of incentive has been given for retail; I’m sitting in a City Council meeting and can’t check that out this minute.

The Mecklenburg board of county commissioners is scheduled to discuss the request Tuesday, Brown said.
Here’s more on the outlet mall.
And here’s a link to the rezoning request. At the public hearing (going on right now) on the rezoning, the Steele Creek Residents’ Association said they’re OK with the rezoning.

Sitting right in front of me is a row of city and county water quality and erosion-control staffers, including Rusty Rozzelle, who heads the county’s water quality section, and John Geer, who heads the city’s erosion control department.  They’ve not spoken yet, so they may just be here in case questions arise.

But here’s a link to a strong article in Sunday’s Charlotte Observer, by environmental reporter Bruce Henderson, about how development in southwest Mecklenburg has all but destroyed Brown’s Cove.

The underlying message is that even when developers follow “the rules” by and large, sedimentation still destroys the lake’s coves. Council member Michael Barnes just said that he’s seen the silt fences and seen the mud sometimes just overrun them. The anti-Tanger segment of the audience just applauded. And Rusty Rozzelle, sitting in front of me, nodded his head at that applause.

Dale Stewart of the site-plannng firm LandDesign is now describing the extra water protection measures they are planning. LandDesign’s Meg Nealon sits on the Charlotte planning commission, which will make a recommendation to the City Council on this proposal. Why is the city taking the lead on a development not in the city limits? Because so little undeveloped county land remains that is not inside Charlotte but is inside the city’s so-called “sphere of influence,” (the area eventually to be annexed) that the county has agreed to let the city have planning and zoning jurisdiction in those areas.  

Taxpayers lose $4 billion on sports venues

One of many links someone shared with me last week during the DNC, when I was too busy hopping from event to event to sit reading links, is this from Bloomberg.com, which adds up some VERY BIG sums of what U.S. taxpayers really pay to subsidize sports stadiums and arenas: “In Stadium Building spree, U.S. Taxpayers Lose $4 Billion.”

With groundbreaking Friday for the Charlotte Knights ballpark in uptown Charlotte, it’s particularly timely reading. Bloomberg reporters looked primarily at tax-exempt muni-bonds issued for places including Charlotte’s Time Warner Cable Arena, where the NBA Bobcats play.

The reporters write: “During the past decade, studies by Grant Long; Robert Baade of Lake Forest College near Chicago; Victor Matheson, an economist at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts; and others have found that stadiums are poor municipal investments. Nonetheless, political leaders are still willing to offer taxpayer-funded aid to team owners including muni-bond financing to lure or avoid losing a franchise and the civic pride and event-related jobs that go with it.”

The link takes you to a 2006 article in Growth and Change: A Journal of Urban and Regional Policy, where the article abstract says: “The evidence presented here is that the presence of a new or renovated stadium has an uncertain impact on the levels of personal income and possibly a negative impact on local development relative to the region.”

Note: The Knights ballpark is getting direct subsidies from Mecklenburg County worth some $20 million (depending on how one values 8.6 acres uptown for $1 a year), $8 million over 20 years from Mecklenburg County, and $7.25 million from the City of Charlotte. I’m fairly sure tax-free municipal bonds aren’t being used. If someone knows different, please alert me.

Many people say the money is worth it: Bringing baseball to uptown Charlotte will enliven the city and spur development, they say.

And if you were uptown during the Democratic National Convention you saw an event that would not have happened if George Shinn had not taken his Charlotte Hornets elsewhere, and the city decided it really did need a new uptown arena.

But isn’t it better to have those debates when you know the full cost of things? Are sports arenas the best use of $4 billion in U.S. treasury funds or should there be other priorities? Depends, I suppose, on how much you love pro football, basketball and baseball.

Counties seek revenue. But not here.

Eleven N.C. counties will ask voters in November to let them impose a new, quarter-cent sales tax. The N.C. legislature in 2007 gave counties a blanket to add the tax if county voters OK’d it. In a 12th county, Watauga County (home of Boone) voters yesterday rejected the idea, apparently with some help from the John Locke Foundation.

While quarter-cent sales tax votes have had mixed results for the last three years, interestingly, seven of nine counties that have already voted this year passed it. (In addition to Watauga, Davie County voters in February, nixed it.) Here’s a rundown from the N.C. Association of County Commissioners.

The measures had a generally mixed record in 2007 and early in 2008. None of the ones on the ballot in November 2008 passed – remember, the financial world had just collapsed.

Harnett County (home to Lillington – corrected 1:51 p.m.) is even going for a third try this November. Well, hey, the third time (last May) was the charm for Onslow County (home to Jacksonville. N.C.).

The 2007 legislation also offered counties the option to impose a land transfer tax – paid when a home is sold – if voters OK it. Of course, the state’s Realtors erupted like Mount St. Helens when that one passed the legislature. A number of counties put it on the ballot right away, without taking time to build community support. Not surprisingly, given the hot opposition from Realtors and developers, none of the land transfer tax measures to date has passed.

Mecklenburg hasn’t opted to try either one, though it has eviscerated its public library system and its county park and recreation budget, and county cuts played a role (state budget cuts did, ) in massive public school teacher and staff layoffs this year and last. Whether the local pols disinclination to put either option on the ballot is a result of sticking a finger into the political winds, or sane tax policy, or is a response to pressure from Realtors, to whom our politicians pay close heed – I’ll let you take your pick of those options.

In general, compared to property taxes, sales taxes go down easier with voters, although economists tend to point out that compared to property taxes they’re more regressive and less stable. But usually you pay sales taxes in small amounts, so people don’t notice them as much as those big propery tax bills.

Counties seek revenue. But not here.

Eleven N.C. counties will ask voters in November to let them impose a new, quarter-cent sales tax. The N.C. legislature in 2007 gave counties a blanket to add the tax if county voters OK’d it. In a 12th county, Watauga County (home of Boone) voters yesterday rejected the idea, apparently with some help from the John Locke Foundation.

While quarter-cent sales tax votes have had mixed results for the last three years, interestingly, seven of nine counties that have already voted this year passed it. (In addition to Watauga, Davie County voters in February, nixed it.) Here’s a rundown from the N.C. Association of County Commissioners.

The measures had a generally mixed record in 2007 and early in 2008. None of the ones on the ballot in November 2008 passed – remember, the financial world had just collapsed.

Harnett County (home to Lillington – corrected 1:51 p.m.) is even going for a third try this November. Well, hey, the third time (last May) was the charm for Onslow County (home to Jacksonville. N.C.).

The 2007 legislation also offered counties the option to impose a land transfer tax – paid when a home is sold – if voters OK it. Of course, the state’s Realtors erupted like Mount St. Helens when that one passed the legislature. A number of counties put it on the ballot right away, without taking time to build community support. Not surprisingly, given the hot opposition from Realtors and developers, none of the land transfer tax measures to date has passed.

Mecklenburg hasn’t opted to try either one, though it has eviscerated its public library system and its county park and recreation budget, and county cuts played a role (state budget cuts did, ) in massive public school teacher and staff layoffs this year and last. Whether the local pols disinclination to put either option on the ballot is a result of sticking a finger into the political winds, or sane tax policy, or is a response to pressure from Realtors, to whom our politicians pay close heed – I’ll let you take your pick of those options.

In general, compared to property taxes, sales taxes go down easier with voters, although economists tend to point out that compared to property taxes they’re more regressive and less stable. But usually you pay sales taxes in small amounts, so people don’t notice them as much as those big propery tax bills.

2 agencies in the gun sights of one commissioner

More from the Mecklenburg County commissioners’ retreat:

In a discussion on the county’s funding of outside agencies – sometimes a topic with lots of undercurrents – commissioner Vilma Leake, who spent years on the school board, made clear her displeasure with two school-related nonprofits that get county money:
Communities in Schools, a dropout prevention service, which gets $815,000 county money this year.
Partners in Out-of-School Time, which offers services to middle school-age students, and gets $200,000.
That’s too much money for two agencies, Leake said. And she questioned why the county is funding services that, in her words, compete with services offered by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.
No action was taken – this is just a discussion meeting – but commissioners talked about the need to beef up county analysis of how all outside groups getting county money are performing.