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.  

Why funding Charlotte’s streetcar is tough

Maybe this item’s headline should be Yet Another Problem with Single-Use Zoning.

There’s been chatter among city policy types about finding some creative finance tools for Charlotte to use to build the second phase of what would ultimately be a Beatties Ford Road-West/East Trade Street-Hawthorne Avenue-Central Avenue streetcar route.One tool being talked of is a special tax assessment district.

(For the purposes of this post, let’s set aside whether said streetcar is a good or bad idea. I tend to think it’s a good idea, as a way to shape and lure development to parts of the city that could use a development boost, but I know others disagree with that. Topic for another day. For now, let’s talk about financing.)

Because of a reluctance to use regular property taxes (for reasons that have not been clearly articulated, at least not in my hearing, but that seem to be taken as gospel), some folks have talked of special tax assessment districts, akin to those that fund Charlotte Center City Partners or University City Partners, along the streetcar route. It’s a tool used around the country to help municipalities pay for infrastructure seen as helping specific neighborhoods.

But here’s why that tool isn’t very sharp in Charlotte, at least not along the part of the streetcar route that is already
funded and ready to start construction this year (Presbyterian Hospital up to the Transportation Center at Brevard Street) as well as the proposed-but-unfunded second leg (from Presbyterian out Hawthorne to Sunnyside Avenue and from the Transportation Center up West Trade Street to Johnson C. Smith University). If you know what’s along that route you’ll notice that huge chunks of land along it are tax-exempt, owned by government or educational or other nonprofit institutions. The hospital. Independence Park. Central Piedmont Community College. The I-277 right-of-way. The old county courthouse. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. Old City Hall. The Federal Reserve Building. The Transportation Center. The arena is city-owned, too. Once you pass The Square you’ve got First Presbyterian Church, the federal courthouse and Johnson & Wales University land. The I-77 right-of-way and, a few blocks later, Johnson C. Smith U.

Yes, there are some taxable parcels along the route, too. I’m just saying …

Years ago, the old and lamentably too-well-followed Odell Plan for uptown Charlotte called for a zone of government buildings, mostly on urban-renewed land appropriated from what once was a black neighborhood called Brooklyn. By creating a district of mostly government buildings, we’ve created a district without much privately owned land. And thus lowered any potential tax revenue for projects like the streetcar. It’s a good illustration of why a fine-grained urban fabric (meaning a lot of different, smaller uses close to each other, instead of huge-footprint, single-use projects) really does seem to be healthier, economically, in the long run.

Of course once you get past JCSU to the west and hit Central Avenue on the east, the amount of potential redevelopable land is much greater. But those sections aren’t even in the city’s long-range capital plan (which hasn’t been adopted anyway).

Want to read more about the streetcar’s potential economic impact under varying scenarios? To download the first part of a 2009 economic development study click here. For the second part click here.