Quote:
Originally Posted by zalf
Glen Murray was speaking today to EPC on the subject of tax-increment financing, but oh boy was he ever making Strong Towns-ian points on a range of subjects. Talking extensively about encouraging development in the most financially-productive locations for fiscal sustainability, reducing structural deficits, fine-grained development, walkability to reduce infrastructure requirements, wealth generation and retention, etc.
Our once and future king.
|
He spoke mostly true words except I think he overstated the effectiveness of TIF as an economic growth tool. The effectiveness of TIF, at least in the empirical literature, is often questioned once historical data is looked at. TIF doesn't act as a catalyst for region-wide growth, but instead usually acts as a magnet attracting development to the area where TIF is, and forgoing development where TIF isn't. It doesn't create net-new buildings or jobs that wouldn't have otherwise occurred, but rather it concentrates them in areas where TIF exists within a region.
That's not to say TIF shouldn't be used as a policy, as it can certainly be used strategically to encourage development in one area while recognizing that it will simultaneously discourage development in another. In the case of downtown Winnipeg, it might be fair for the City to forgo tax revenue to try and encourage development downtown but it must also recognize that this means forgoing development elsewhere in the City. Like any other city, Winnipeg only needs X amount of dwelling units per year to accommodate growth and where they go matter, so TIF is useful. But overall, it won't be a policy to stimulate further net growth.
Of course something could be said about a vastly improved downtown (thanks to TIF) increasing the city's growth trajectory which might not have occurred in the absence of a broad and well-written TIF policy, but that would be difficult to prove and would certainly be a long-run trend influenced by many other factors.
Prev
Linear Mode
