There has been very little discussion in the past 5 or so years on this forum. Nayboobs whine, Someone disagrees with the Nayboobs -- the Nayboobs attack the person who disagrees.
This thread for discussion about economic development. "Economic Development" is a term often posted on these boards but no one ever really discusses it. What does it mean? The definition is here:
Quoted Text
Economic development is the sustained, concerted actions of policy makers and communities that promote the standard of living and economic health of a specific area
So let's discuss. What standard of living is being promoted?
We know there has been development downtown. It has been done by taking hefty sums of money from the taxpayers. Taxpayers are financially struggling -- do you agree? The owners of the properties that have been developed are multimillionaires and they do not have to pay taxes. Pilots are only a tiny fraction of what would be the full tax bill.
Several of the properties developed, we have to ask HOW they would fit the definition of economic development when the jobs where long existing jobs in other municipalities and were simply a transfer of jobs from one city to another--primarily state employees. How is that economic development? When state offices were moved here, what percent of the employees who lives in other cities, towns, villages, chose to sell their homes where they lived and buy houses in the city? How many of the very high paid state employees bought houses in the city when the jobs were transferred here?
MVP had employees on I think Union St and they moved to State St. How is it economic development if employees are moved from Union St to State St? Were additions to MVP staff a development due to something that the city/co/plex did? Or were increases in staff to MVP due to employer groups choosing to add MVP as an option for their employees or the sole plan? Staff increases are needed for MVP when membership increases. Is that attributable to the city/co/plex? Or are the staff increases attributable to increases in enrollment resulting from a federal law that mandates people enroll in health insurance and X number of people enrolled which necessitates additional staff (marketing, claims reviewers, customer service reps, etc).
Some small businesses got brand spanking new buildlings at little cost to the business owner, the businesses are now tax exempt (or pay "pilots," i.e., small fraction of the tax based on assessed value) and they simply moved employees a few feet or a couple miles.
A few big multimillionaire chain businesses came in (the Hilton, bka known as the Hampton Inn; the Mex Radio, Paul Mitchell). Dishwashers, maids, janitors, hair dressers, human telephone answering "machines," -- it is a well known fact that they are low wage jobs, so they cannot afford to buy houses in the city, they may not even be able to afford the rents in the city, I mean really, when you are making $10 an hour, how do you afford $900 a month rent? Most are probably still eligible for EITC.
Are we really having economic development? If so, why are property values falling? Why are home sales falling? Why are home sale prices falling? Why are taxes increasing? Why is the tax base falling? Why are people losing equity in their homes as their home values fall (for many, their home is their financial security and they are losing their security).
Look again at part of that definition: "...promote the standard of living and economic health of a specific area"
Lose of equity in ones home due falling home values, the resultant loss of financial security, taxes taking an increasing bite of homeowners net pay (which the vast majority of people are not getting raises), the increase in tax foreclosures, the increase in bank foreclosures (years after the end of the "real estate crisis), the increasing numbers of vacant residential units, the increase in abandoned and boarded up homes.
Read the items in
italics. How do those conditions meet the criteria of promoting a standard of living and economic health of an area?
As people lose equity and resulting financial security due to falling home values during this so called "economic development" in the city, what stamddard of living is being promoted? A better one or a worse one? The loss of value of one's home -- is that a sign of economic health of the city?
We know for sure that the multimillionaire property owners who often received hefty handouts from taxpayers for building/renovating their properties, so their financial worth has been improved by the money they saved. Multimillionaires who have to pay next to nothing in property taxes are having their financial worth increased. Business owners who don't live here among the blight and don't pay property taxes on a personal residence are doing well.
But how has this "economic development" helped the long time taxpaying business? Oh, they closed up. How has this "economic development" helped the homeowners and residents in the neighborhoods -- can anyone explain how their standard of living is improving? Or is their standard of living falling because of the fact that their home values are falling which reduces their financial security.
Logged
