Phoenix Development News (3)

[exit2lef]

Interesting article from Cronkite News about Roosevelt Row, walkability, and the continuing debate over ground floor retail:

http://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2016/05/05/downtown-phoenix-housing-development-walkability

[azsunsurfer]

http://azbigmedia.com/azre-magazine/downtown-phoenix-development-shows-need-walkable-streets

This is news to me...I thought Illuminate and Linear had a retail space on their respective ground floors but I guess not....

[biggus diggus]

I talked to a friend over the weekend about the tax increase around Roosevelt, he told me if they had passed the BID his tax would have doubled to $26,000 per year. This puts it in plain simple terms why some people were so against it.

Also the studios proposed for 2nd and mckinley may soon have an injunction filed against it.

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

I talked to a friend over the weekend about the tax increase around Roosevelt, he told me if they had passed the BID his tax would have doubled to $26,000 per year. This puts it in plain simple terms why some people were so against it.

That really doesn't tell us anything. The mere fact that business could owe $26,000 of tax really means nothing unless you know the size of the business, its revenue, its income, its financial condition, what benefits or detriments would have resulted from the BID, etc.

[azsunsurfer]

Are you kidding me....most of these small businesses around Roosevelt probably don't have 26K just lying around per year for additional taxes. I'd rather that money go towards improvements to their respected properties or increasing employee wages than having some useless guy in an orange shirt walking with an empty smile....

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

Are you kidding me....most of these small businesses around Roosevelt probably don't have 26K just lying around per year for additional taxes. I'd rather that money go towards improvements to their respected properties or increasing employee wages than having some useless guy in an orange shirt walking with an empty smile....

1. It would be $13,000 of additional tax (not $26,000).
2. That's not really a safe assumption. There are plenty of ways that a business can absorb additional taxes. For example, the business could be very profitable (in spite of it being small). There could be some mechanism that would allow the business to legally pass the tax burden onto their customer. Or there could be price elasticity that would allow them to financially pass the tax burden onto their customers (essentially by raising prices roughly proportionate to the amount of the business's additional tax). And come on - we're talking about $1,083 per month. That's really not that much. Also keep in mind that this tax would have affected all businesses in Roosevelt Row. Therefore - it's not like the friend's business would be at a competitive disadvantage compared to its neighbors.

I'm not taking a position on the BID one way or another. I'm just pointing out that you can't boldly assert an opinion based on assumptions when the assumptions have few, if any facts to back them up.

[PHXFlyer11]

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

Are you kidding me....most of these small businesses around Roosevelt probably don't have 26K just lying around per year for additional taxes. I'd rather that money go towards improvements to their respected properties or increasing employee wages than having some useless guy in an orange shirt walking with an empty smile....

This isn't a fair assessment either. You'd have to know what the funds are going towards. It is very possible that the improvements the funds make to the community could bring in additional business that would easily offset the increase in taxes. Just throwing out numbers isn't fact or analysis.

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by nickw252

That really doesn't tell us anything. The mere fact that business could owe $26,000 of tax really means nothing unless you know the size of the business, its revenue, its income, its financial condition, what benefits or detriments would have resulted from the BID, etc.

I guess I should have left out the amount and just made my point which is the taxes would have doubled.

[ASU Diablo]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer11

This isn't a fair assessment either. You'd have to know what the funds are going towards. It is very possible that the improvements the funds make to the community could bring in additional business that would easily offset the increase in taxes. Just throwing out numbers isn't fact or analysis.

Exactly. Numerous other intangible benefits as well that would offset the increase in taxes.

biggus diggus - what studios are you referring to on 2nd? Was it the RFP'ed parcel that MetroWest won?

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

http://azbigmedia.com/azre-magazine/downtown-phoenix-development-shows-need-walkable-streets

This is news to me...I thought Illuminate and Linear had a retail space on their respective ground floors but I guess not....

That's the same article I shared from Cronkite News. Apparently, AZ Big Media republishes a lot of content. In any case, I'm glad Illuminate and Linear are skipping the ground floor retail. We have too much of it languishing empty for years after buildings are complete. Roosevelt Point's space is finally being occupied, but I'm not sure if Oliver's Sophisticated Bean is going to last based on the scant customers I've seen there during my visits. There's enough retail space nearby and in other projects under development to support the neighborhood. If we twist developers' arms to make them develop space the market can't support, then we just replace one form of blight (vacant lots) with another (empty storefronts). Some projects will incorporate retail, some won't, and that's okay. We take mixed use too far when we insist that every single building has to incorporate multiple uses. As long as we have a variety of uses within a block or two of another, it's a net gain for urban vitality.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

I talked to a friend over the weekend about the tax increase around Roosevelt, he told me if they had passed the BID his tax would have doubled to $26,000 per year. This puts it in plain simple terms why some people were so against it.

Does this friend own a building with an active business in it, or just a piece of vacant land? I sympathize with any small business owner facing a potential doubling of his or her tax burden, but I'd love to see vacant land taxed more aggressively so as to discourage land banking. Right now, the prevalent perception seems to be that this is neighborhood businesses in support of the BID vs. absentee land owners in opposition. I know you've said repeatedly that's not the case, but when small business people decline to go public with their opposition, the stereotype I just mentioned is reinforced.

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

I sympathize with any small business owner facing a potential doubling of his or her tax burden,

Be careful about saying that this would "double his or her tax burden."

There are numerous different types of taxes - sales and use tax, income taxes (state and federal), employer taxes, etc. What we're talking about would only be an increase in one type of tax (property taxes). Moreover, taxpayers receive income tax deductions for other types of taxes paid. Therefore, if your property taxes increase, your income taxes decrease.

Thus, a doubling of property taxes would in no way "double his or her tax burden." It would only be one small element of a much bigger picture.

It's disingenuous to make arguments about tax policy (or anything, for that matter) without considering all the facts, nuances, and the overall big picture.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by nickw252

Be careful about saying that this would "double his or her tax burden."

There are numerous different types of taxes - sales and use tax, income taxes (state and federal), employer taxes, etc. What we're talking about would only be an increase in one type of tax (property taxes). Moreover, taxpayers receive income tax deductions for other types of taxes paid. Therefore, if your property taxes increase, your income taxes decrease.

Thus, a doubling of property taxes would in no way "double his or her tax burden." It would only be one small element of a much bigger picture.

It's disingenuous to make arguments about tax policy (or anything, for that matter) without considering all the facts, nuances, and the overall big picture.

Good point. There's a lot we don't know here.

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Does this friend own a building with an active business in it, or just a piece of vacant land? I sympathize with any small business owner facing a potential doubling of his or her tax burden, but I'd love to see vacant land taxed more aggressively so as to discourage land banking. Right now, the prevalent perception seems to be that this is neighborhood businesses in support of the BID vs. absentee land owners in opposition. I know you've said repeatedly that's not the case, but when small business people decline to go public with their opposition, the stereotype I just mentioned is reinforced.

He rents a building on a triple net so he is responsible for the increase in property tax if it does happen. He informed his landlord he would be moving out if it does pass and moving to a location north of Roosevelt where the taxes would not double.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by airomero83

Exactly. Numerous other intangible benefits as well that would offset the increase in taxes.

biggus diggus - what studios are you referring to on 2nd? Was it the RFP'ed parcel that MetroWest won?

I believe 2nd & McKinley would be Derby Roosevelt Row, the 19-story "Micro" apartments.

biggus diggus, any more info on whether this is happening, and what the grounds for seeking an injunction would be?

[ASU Diablo]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

I believe 2nd & McKinley would be Derby Roosevelt Row, the 19-story "Micro" apartments.

biggus diggus, any more info on whether this is happening, and what the grounds for seeking an injunction would be?

Gotcha. I was thinking Ave vs Street

But while on the subject, during one of the RAA meetings to discuss Circles, it was brought up that MetroWest was also seeking a GPLET for the proposed project at 2nd Ave and McKinley. Maybe this is why we have seen no updates there? I still don't know what's going on with their other project, McKinley Row (4th Ave n McKinley)

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

I believe 2nd & McKinley would be Derby Roosevelt Row, the 19-story "Micro" apartments.

biggus diggus, any more info on whether this is happening, and what the grounds for seeking an injunction would be?

I just read an article mentioning the GPLET for Derby that was published on the 7th. There was nothing mentioning an injunction. My guess is the residents are not happy about the GPLET since they started fighting that from the beginning. Can't really be anything else since it's a dirt lot....unless the dirt is historically significant?

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by RonnieFoos

I just read an article mentioning the GPLET for Derby that was published on the 7th. There was nothing mentioning an injunction. My guess is the residents are not happy about the GPLET since they started fighting that from the beginning. Can't really be anything else since it's a dirt lot....unless the dirt is historically significant?

Yeah, my only other thought was that I believe part of approving the project was approving a reduction of minimum parking standards. Not sure what grounds private citizens have to enjoin deviations from parking standards, but that could be it as well.

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

I believe 2nd & McKinley would be Derby Roosevelt Row, the 19-story "Micro" apartments.

biggus diggus, any more info on whether this is happening, and what the grounds for seeking an injunction would be?

north facing and zero lot line building means trouble when/if the neighbor to the north decides to develop his lot as well. The Derby developer is apparently unwilling to forego the north facing windows.

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

north facing and zero lot line building means trouble when/if the neighbor to the north decides to develop his lot as well. The Derby developer is apparently unwilling to forego the north facing windows.

Not sure I understand that. Angels Trumpet Ale House is on the lot immediately to the North of Derby. I'm not aware of plans to develop/redevelop that lot?