Amendment One in NC - Yea or Nay?

[kick-ass-bob]

To be honest, I really haven't delved into this at all - I just recently found out about it.

I read some point/counterpoint this morning about it and can see both sides of it.

Basically it allows bonds to be issued without votes to help spur private developments which are then supposed to be paid back with the revenue from the extra property taxes, etc.

Does anyone know the specifics?

aka: self-financing bonds

[Mel]

1. I'm voting NO

anything supported by the John Locke Foundation is a No vote from me here's a link that may be of use.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=1729

[wildeyed]

4. Actually, the way I am reading it,

the John Locke foundation does NOT support this amendment.

But opponents -- both liberal and conservative -- say voters might lose the right to approve government borrowing.

"The goal of the Amendment One movement is to make sure not to ask the voters (about future projects), because they fear the voters will say no," said John Hood, president of the conservative John Locke Foundation. "That, of course, is the argument for keeping it the way it is."

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/special_packages/election2004/voters_guide/9928691.htm

[struggle4progress]

6. NO from me, too.

As far as I can tell, this amendment helps real-estate developers with connections and nobody else. That's probably why it's been shot down repeatedly in the past.

If developers want to build, I don't see why local government should fundraise for them.

[HFishbine]

7. I share your view. No for me too.

I know our local governments. Montgomery Burns could come to town proposing a $14M poop factory and as long as the word "jobs" is attached to it, they won't say no to coughing up public money. I prefer to retain my right to vote on bond issues.

[KoKo]

8. I'm voting NO...it's a plan for "privatization" being sneaked in, imho.

I'm hoping for the "Independent" to do an analysis of it, because they are good at giving a more Progressive view of what the pro's and con's are.

But, there are so many ads in favor of it...I assume it's the big money behind it....and we all know what the "big money" means.

[kick-ass-bob]

10. THey have former gov's

Holshauser, Hunt and Martin as the co-chairs.

I thought that was interesting.

[Cicero]

12. Even worse, what if the deal falls through?

You're expecting X in tax dollars but the venture is only realizing .75X. Where will the rest of the money come from? From the taxpayers, of course.

Later,

[Warpy]

2. Sounds like a scam to me

In other words, you don't get to say where your tax money goes. Bonds are floated to pay for commercial development and your tax money pays the interest on them. The commercial developer benefits. The bond holder benefits. You get stuck with the bill whether or not you wanted it. It sounds like something open to abuse by sweetheart deals between corrupt officials and their coprorate cronies, bypassing the oversight of the people to fatten the rich two ways with public money.

I'd vote against anything that took oversight out of the hands of the people, but especially when private enterprise is the beneficiary of public money.

[kick-ass-bob]

3. This is probably why it has failed twice with No votes in the 70% range...

[wildeyed]

5. Hard decision.

On one hand, the state really does need to find ways to spark economic growth. I just don't know if this amendment is the right way to do it.

[KoKo]

9. Maybe they will come up with a better one...might be good to wait. (n/t)

[kick-ass-bob]

11. The Independent says 'No to Amendment One'

http://indyweek.com/durham/current/

[Endangered Specie]

13. No...

The independent says no too... I read it and the analysis... complicated and not good sounding

[JanMichael]

14. And one wonders why NC is one of only two states to not have TIF?

Misinformation abounds even from Progressive sites and newspapers.

Yes some developers like it, but it's also a sprawl fighting technique for cities that want to defend their downtowns. How? Generally speaking TIF is project specific so most municipalities use state redevelopment zones or central business district, or downtown, or blighted area, boundaries.

It's a project specific borrowing tool. The taxes in a geographical unit are frozen at a specific time. The TIF goes to work, infrastucture is built, the land value increases over that initial base rate, that's the "Increment" in TIF, that Incremental income is used to pay back the bonds used to create the development.

Positives:

Focuses resources toward infrastructure in areas that often need it.

Can be used to clean up envirnmental hazards from old depots and downtowns.

Gives cities a way to entice developers, or themselves, to spend money in areas that need it (Brownfield developments) thus scaling back sprawl (Greenfield deveopments).

Since a city council and/or Redevelopment Commission is usually the voting body on a project it still has representation, just not a Direct Referendom.

TIF projects are not able to hurt a city's bond rating so they're more likely to be used on more needy areas that might not payout so fast.

Negatives:

Gentrification.

Some degree of fattening the already fat wallets of developers.

Sometimes the wealth of an area doesn't grow, this is unusual, but it can happen and there's no "Increment" in the TIF.


It's not perfect but whether one wants to believe it or not TIF empowers smaller communities. Whether or not it's used well is a local issue and aren't we all for local control?

I voted Yes yesterday.

[dad]

15. I voted no

It's corporate welfare

[mmonk]

16. I voted no

I prefer people know what and where funding goes and to be able to vote on it.

[JanMichael]

17. How are elected bodies not voted for?

It's called representative democracy.

For gods sake this is a tool to fight sprawl, clean up brownfields (Toxic Sites), improve infrastructure in blighted neighborheads and other things that the Feds and State won't fund due to political pressure to push greenfield development and cut revenue.

It's BOND financing not a tax, it's a financing tool, the "increment" pays the bond.

Yes some people will make money due to re-development but, and I'm a f*cking SOCIALIST for gawd's sake, that shit's going to happen until we pull our collective heads out of corporate America's ass.

[yellerpup]

18. I voted no.

Will they use the funds to clean up pollution? Or, will they build another stadium that no one but the developer wants?

[Spiffarino]

19. I voted "yes"

NC and Arizona are the only states that don't have this law on the books. It helps make it easier to gather funds for developing all kinds of projects. Will it help corporations? Some. But it'll help us more by streamlining the bond process. It's a major headache to pass a bond referendum in this state. Amendment One will make it easier.

I grew up in California where this has been the law for decades. It didn't make a speck of difference in the amount of taxes we paid overall. You still get to vote for or against the people who decide on these things.

[JanMichael]

20. Me too. Last Friday. Although I understand some of the "nays" I...

...simply can't see playing idealistic on one of the few local gummint tools that can actually be used to help depressed aresa sans State/Fed support. On top of that one of the only real effective sprawl fighting (Via brownfield mitigation) weapons left to cities.

I always thought we were mostly local control types here?

[GainesT1958]

21. Our state is handicapped...

By not having this authority available to the state, and to local governments, as well. All but two states have it, and all are thussly at an advantage at recruiting new investments, and new jobs, because of it. I voted early today, and I voted FOR Amendment One, because we at least need to have T-I-F at our disposal as an option!

B-)