Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Tax Abatements: Can they be justified?


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:29 PM

GE Transportation could receive up to $3.3 million in a 10-year tax abatement toward the development of a $96 million locomotive manufacturing plant in far north Fort Worth, under a proposal being considered by the City Council. Read more: http://www.star-tele...h#ixzz1Mfqc1026

Justifications are being made to approve the abatement, but can the give-a-way be justified when the city if facing a projected $30m. shortfall for upcoming fiscal year; and the idea of an infrastructure tax attached to each water bill is being proposed?

Keep Fort Worth folksy

#2 Brian Luenser

Brian Luenser

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,083 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 18 May 2011 - 05:32 AM

Tax abatements can surely be justified, sometimes.

Personally, I think they are poor tools, but am in favor of them in Fort Worth. I wish they did not exist and were made illegal, but if they do exist and are legal, I want Fort Worth to be in the game. Not giving away abatements in this environment would put us at a real disadvantage. These companies would just find somebody that does subsidize their construction costs.


The theory is not completely different than gambling to me. I wish it were all illegal. But I don't want it to be only illegal in Texas for sure. I have always hated to see Texans driving to OK, NV or wherever. (Very recent story in the local paper about Texas gambling in OK) So much air pollution at a minimum. Not just from them but in the traffic they create.
www.fortworthview.com

#3 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,363 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 18 May 2011 - 07:39 PM

I never have been a fan of tax abatements. With our budget shortfalls, I really don't see how any justification could be made for giving one to GE Transportation or any other business.

#4 JKC

JKC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 19 May 2011 - 05:30 AM

One problem is that most all our neighboring jurisdictions do throw incentives like this at a company. It is pretty difficult for a company to locate then in the City that is not making comparable offers. These companies are now coming in the door with site selection consultants who are basically brokering for incentives.

#5 Sam Stone

Sam Stone

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Overton, then Monticello, now expat in OC, CA

Posted 19 May 2011 - 08:00 AM

Can they be justified? Sure. But like Brian says, they are poor tools. If we got rid of all the tax abatements, everybody's taxes could be a little bit lower. And that would attract business and development, too.

One other problem with tax abatements is that you are publicly subsidizing one company, but not others (like their competition). So a good rule of thumb when doling out tax abatements is to give them only to "unique" properties like headquarters or manufacturing facilities. This is as opposed to retail where an abatement recipient likely has many non-abated competitors in the same city. At least the GE deal follows this rule. The same can't be said of other deals, like the Montgomery Plaza retail on 7th.

#6 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 26 September 2012 - 09:59 AM

The city is offering still another tax abatement to accommodate an expanding business, this one in the Alliance area, as explained in this ST article by Scott Nishimura. I'm not opposed to tax incentives, if used selectively and wisely. In this case we may well desire ATC Logistics to remain in Fort Worth, rather than move elsewhere.

http://www.star-tele...fort-worth.html

#7 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 26 September 2012 - 04:06 PM

Here is a short article from the Star Telegraph (not Star-Telegram) blog about publicly subsidized developments like Bass Pro Shops and Cabellas.

http://startelegraph...y-cost-you.html

#8 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 27 September 2012 - 09:31 AM

Good article about Cabela's and Bass Pro Shop. Food for thought. I agree that retail establishments masking as engines for economic development is a bit of a stretch, and perhaps they are less deserving of tax incentives. I believe ATC Logistics, being a manufacturer, has a more legitimate reason for seeking abatements. That's why I believe the city should be slectdive in extending such offers and only after a careful review.

#9 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 17 October 2012 - 07:03 AM

Still another company wants to move to Fort Worth, on condition of getting a tax abatement, as described in this Scott Nishimura article in the Star-Telegram. I know a lot of cities probably do this, but does FW particularly have a reputation that prospective businesses know about and use it for leverage? I'm no expert on the tax abatement issue, but is this a "me too" strategy?

http://www.star-tele...60-percent.html

#10 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:48 PM

Read this in the Fort Worth Business Press:

http://fwbusinesspre...SubSectionID=49

Yet another give away by the City Council; and then just after immediately approving of this blantant corporate welfare to a private real estate investment firm, the Council will then review its Ethic Codes.

"Can you believe it!"

By the way, I think that the FWBP has incorrectedly printed the address of the property seeking a tax abatement and that the FWBP will have to print a correction with apology to the German Auto Garage. It seems more likely that the actual applicant is the property at the intersection of Carroll and Weisenberger.

#11 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,512 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:12 AM

Yes, it seems me that tax abatement is {reverse thinking here} diverting future city tax revenue to pay for city services, labor and equipment. Meaning the city will be receiving less tax receipts in exchange of the new company promising to employe more people etc.

I learned a few years ago about what happens when that company does not achieve the tasks specified in the tax abatement agreement. The company failure to perform will result in paying the required city tax revenue like they had not received the tax abatement in the first place.

Might have to follow up on the exact terms of the agreement.

Dave still at

360texas45x145.png
Visit 360texas.com


#12 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:42 AM

More on the sensitive issue of local tax abatements.  These are for Walmart and a prospective beverage bottling company from North Carolina; S-T article by Scott Nishimura.  I support both proposals that have been approved by the council. I  also favor some state incentives that lure other companies to Texas from elsewhere in the country (with the possible exception of using our state's right-to-work status as leverage for luring companies in heavily unionized industries...my late father was a staunch pro-union guy).

 

http://www.star-tele...supportive.html



#13 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 15 May 2013 - 06:06 AM

This S-T article is about the Fort Worth City Council considering two tax abatements, including one for a sports facility to move from Haltom City to north Fort Worth. Obviously it would be Fort Worth's sales tax revenue gain and Haltom City's loss. But is this incentive worth it, considering that Haltom City is a close suburb of Fort Worth and it's just a sports facility?

http://www.star-tele...adlines-default

#14 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 July 2015 - 07:20 AM

The latest article from the Star-Telegram says eventually more than 100 [Facebook].  They are required to have at least 40 employees per the incentive package.

 

Controversial, but what if -

 

the City levied a Fort Worth Payroll Fee upon all employees of a company that receives a public tax incentive package.  Employees who reside inside the city or who pay property taxes to the city would be eligible for a fee rebate; employees who reside outside of the city or who pay no taxes to the city would not be eligible for a rebate.

 

Would this be an equitable deal for the tens of thousand of taxpayers residing within the city's taxing jurisdiction and who are indirectly subsidizing corporations and the jobs of their workers?



#15 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 08 July 2015 - 11:03 AM

 

The latest article from the Star-Telegram says eventually more than 100 [Facebook].  They are required to have at least 40 employees per the incentive package.

 

Controversial, but what if -

 

the City levied a Fort Worth Payroll Fee upon all employees of a company that receives a public tax incentive package.  Employees who reside inside the city or who pay property taxes to the city would be eligible for a fee rebate; employees who reside outside of the city or who pay no taxes to the city would not be eligible for a rebate.

 

Would this be an equitable deal for the tens of thousand of taxpayers residing within the city's taxing jurisdiction and who are indirectly subsidizing corporations and the jobs of their workers?

 

Not a bad idea in terms of equity.  But I'm assuming you would incorporate this into future tax incentive offerings and not "grandfather" it in the plan already offered to Facebook.  .
 



#16 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dirty suburbs

Posted 08 July 2015 - 01:45 PM

It would probably be better for businesses in the central core than those in suburban areas like Alliance. The flexibility, variety , and spread-out nature of housing options in bordering cities would be an issue. It's entirely possible that a company could build a facility in FW and the closest housing option is in Keller, Haslet, Justin, Roanoke, etc. I don't think any employer would want to be in a position where their employees are being punished for wanting to live as close as possible to their workplace. That being said, I'm all for measures that put these tax abatements in a position to provide maximum benefit for FW. I'm just not sure if this is a way to do it that makes sense.

#17 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 July 2015 - 05:55 PM

... It's entirely possible that a company could build a facility in FW and the closest housing option is in Keller, Haslet, Justin, Roanoke, etc. I don't think any employer would want to be in a position where their employees are being punished for wanting to live as close as possible to their workplace. That being said, I'm all for measures that put these tax abatements in a position to provide maximum benefit for FW. I'm just not sure if this is a way to do it that makes sense.

 

If a company builds a facility in Fort Worth without an incentive package, then it is not an issue. 

 

However, there are housing options available in North Fort Worth, so presumably, an employee will not be in the position of being punished for lack of housing, as he or she will have the opportunity to avoid the fee by residing within Fort Worth.

 

Residents of say, Meadowbrook or Ridglea are having their property taxes collected and then transferred to the property tax base of a Keller, Justin, Roanoke, etc.  and who were not asked to contribute to the incentive package. 

 

The employee who is being punished is the worker in Fort Worth who has to contribute for a loss of tax revenue waived for the company and the jobs that are generated.



#18 elpingüino

elpingüino

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,440 posts

Posted 06 August 2015 - 07:47 AM

Interesting report in the Star-Telegram: Fort Worth companies with tax incentives hiring more, spending more

 


 

 


Edited by John T Roberts, 06 August 2015 - 08:33 AM.
Quote deleted because it was directly from a copyrighted article.


#19 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 07 April 2016 - 06:49 AM

We're all aware of the on-going policy of the current administration to incentivize developers financially in order to spur commercial and residential growth in a particular area of the city.  The latest to receive this subsidy is the south side.  I applaud this pro-active policy. 

 

The Fort Worth Business article below also highlights some of the projects planned for this side of town, but each of these projects has been the focus of another thread.

 

http://www.fortworth...b576d3cf2e.html

 

Are the TIF's that are aimed at neighborhood revitalization viewed differently from a political perspective than tax abatements targeted to individual businesses of large importance (e.g. GE Locomotive)?



#20 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 24 October 2018 - 09:28 PM

I wish that this project was located in Downtown rather than Alliance.  And while, it is technically in Fort Worth, these employees will more than likely live in nearby Westlake or Keller and their salaries, school taxes will be spent outside of Fort Worth.  Also, whatever Alliance is, it is not an economically distressed area as is the requirement  before abatement can be granted.

 

As a way to induce more core investment, one  measurement should be that the farther away from Downtown, the smaller the incentive package.  I would deny the request. -

 

http://www.fortworth...217c5b2f8e.html



#21 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,004 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Hills

Posted 25 October 2018 - 07:28 AM

I wish that this project was located in Downtown rather than Alliance.

 
For the record "this project" is "Mercedes Benz Financial Services seeks enterprise zone designation for $50M project"?  Providing links are good, but there should be enough in a post for it to stand alone without clicking the link.

 

/PetPeeve


My blog: Doohickie

#22 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 25 October 2018 - 09:36 AM

Your pet peeve acknowledged.

 

Mercedes Benz Financial  Services (MBFS) is an ongoing story that has gotten placed on the back burners as the announcement of more developments has been made.    In 2017, MBFS announced it plans to build an additional 200,000 sf of Class A Office building at its campus in Alliance.  Oh wouldn't it be nice if the 200k was included in a building maybe the size of 640 Taylor (Frost Tower) instead on the prairies of Alliance near Denton County.  "This project" is in reference to their building(s) which will then total 364,000 sf.

 

A 364,000 sf 30 story tower would be absolutely great in Downtown.

 

I wish that the City was more particular about where it provides their abatement and would wish that the City use added incentive to build Class A projects within the CBD.  Bringing these office workers to Downtown has the multiplier effect for demand in housing, retailing and tax revenues for FWISD for the CBD/Fort Worth.

 

Again for the goal of more density (high rise) in Downtown and the impact that a high rise tower would make in the CBD; and also that Hillwood Development(Alliance) should not be designated as an economically distressed area in any stretch of the mind, this request should be denied.



#23 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dirty suburbs

Posted 25 October 2018 - 09:56 AM

The criteria for TIF's is technically not "economically distressed", but "unimproved or blighted". Any land that is vacant is unimproved, so that gives municipalities a lot of wiggle room when it comes to their use. Since everyone is doing it, it's a problem that probably needs to be addressed by the legislature, but I doubt anyone will touch it. I agree that Fort Worth should scale back tax breaks outside the loop (and they announced not long ago that they would), but it's going to require a big policy shift.

#24 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 25 October 2018 - 10:31 AM

I agree the City Council should promote the need for Class A office buildings downtown.  Ideally companies like Mercedes Benz Financial should occupy 30-story buildings downtown rather than build an expansive horizontal campus in the Alliance area.  But it's Mercedes Benz Financial's decision whether or not to re-locate to the Fort Worth area.  And they are eyeing property other than in downtown.  Without some incentives from the city, this company may just as well say "No, we're going elsewhere."  If that's an ongoing pattern, Fort Worth may cease to experience business and industrial growth.



#25 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 25 October 2018 - 11:24 AM

The criteria for TIF's is technically not "economically distressed", but "unimproved or blighted". Any land that is vacant is unimproved....

 

 

..... But it's Mercedes Benz Financial's  (MBFS) decision whether or not to re-locate to the Fort Worth area.  And they are eyeing property other than in downtown.  Without some incentives from the city, this company may just as well say "No, we're going elsewhere."  If that's an ongoing pattern, Fort Worth may cease to experience business and industrial growth.

 

 MBFS/Hillwood is seeking an abatement using the Texas Enterprise Zone Program.

 

 Except, on its face,  Alliance is not a disadvantaged area of the City nor is there likely to be 25% of its residents at or near the poverty level in order for Alliance to qualify for a TEZP designation.  Those 70k Salaries will be taken by residents in Far North Fort Worth and Southern Denton County; not by the workers who live within the Fort Worth Loop.

 

Land is not distressed just because it has not be developed or improved.  It is slight of hand that MBFS is building away from its present location just to "say" that the land is unimproved, as thus "distressed". Hillwood wants a hand out.

 

IMO, an area such as the Berry Street @ Riverside Drive is distressed and is well qualified as having residents that are below or at poverty levels and he lack of jobs.  Hillwood is taking advantage of something that one would believe is meant to help the struggling areas of a city.

 

 Hillwood/Alliance may choose to build offices in outlaying regions of the City, but if it decides to do so, it should not be given an abatement  which goal is to encourage development in distressed areas and where the residents do not have readily access to those jobs.  Offering incentives for Hillwood to prevent it from building in another city is not the correct use of the EEZ.   Lets remember that Hillwood has plans on the drawing board to build a super tall tower in Downtown Dallas and is simply waiting for a tenant.  It is particularly galling when Hillwood could just as easily make plans to build a smaller tower (500k sf) in Downtown Fort Worth to office MBFS and another tenant to absorb the 500k of Class A Office Space. I have a case of cynicism for Hillwood because it treats Fort Worth more as suburban in its relationship to Dallas and has not seem to have any interest in developing Downtown Fort Worth.



#26 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 25 October 2018 - 11:59 AM

...has not seem to have any interest in developing Downtown Fort Worth.

 

 

That's because downtown Fort Worth is owned by another clan. Not going to support them, you know?



#27 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 25 October 2018 - 12:02 PM

I think I know where you are going with this, and I agree.



#28 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 25 October 2018 - 12:05 PM

I think I know where you are going with this, and I agree.

 

It's really a feature/bug of Fort Worth, that the city is controlled by just a handful of families. The same cannot be said of Dallas. There's a reason Fort Worth still has that small town feel- because no matter the inflated population numbers caused by excessive annexation, it still is a small town.



#29 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 25 October 2018 - 12:22 PM

 

I think I know where you are going with this, and I agree.

 

It's really a feature/bug of Fort Worth, that the city is controlled by just a handful of families. The same cannot be said of Dallas. There's a reason Fort Worth still has that small town feel- because no matter the inflated population numbers caused by excessive annexation, it still is a small town.

 

 

Agree; and while we had some very nice things to happen to Fort Worth, many other things might have happen or could happen if it was seen to be more open to outsiders.  Having voiced my suspicions for a long time by watching how Fort Worth so routinely under perform its peer Texas cities, I believe it is true that Fort Worth is operated as a modern day fiefdom.

 

You are correct, the same cannot be said of Dallas or Austin:  "Its come a build; we want development and new companies".

 

It is so refreshing to see that outsiders are beginning to take a chance in Fort Worth (Sinclair, Northland, etc)  and plodding ahead even against the  built in hometown favorites.  And this week, a California Hotel Company, bringing detail specifics with it,  is entering Fort Worth.  At last, it seems that the "I will build a "boutique hotel" is being made irrelevant and 640 Taylor is demonstrating that state-of-the-art Class A Office space is what today's businesses want; not a redo of a 70 y/o building.

 

I am watching how the Meacham Airport debate evolves when it is presently the playground/enterprise of the Fort Worth Clan.



#30 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 25 October 2018 - 12:35 PM

I agree the City Council should promote the need for Class A office buildings downtown.  Ideally companies like Mercedes Benz Financial should occupy 30-story buildings downtown rather than build an expansive horizontal campus in the Alliance area...

 

 Lets stick in an even sweeter deal if the company will build in Downtown.

 

 Seems like this is just the kind of perk/argument that should be lead by Downtown Fort Worth, Inc.



#31 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 25 October 2018 - 06:44 PM

I have long been opposed to tax abatements, but I really wonder what business Mercedes Benz is conducting that generates sales tax?  I assume they are processing and making loans.  I don't recall paying sales tax on loans.  I'm also not sure what the have that they pay a use tax on.  Maybe someone can enlighten me.  It's possible they might be looking to avoid taxes on construction and furnished office equipment.  I don't understand how they get a refund on sales or use taxes on jobs.  

 

The debate over buiding at Alliance or downtown seems silly to me.  Hillwood bought up property in far North Fort Worth 25 or more years ago and have given the city a leg up over Dallas in warehousing and inland port operations.  Of course they are going to want to develope the property they have owned for years.  It is up to the people that own the property downtown to develop their property and offer a product that will attract business to downtown.



#32 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 25 October 2018 - 08:24 PM

...I don't understand how they get a refund on sales or use taxes on jobs.  

 

The debate over buiding at Alliance or downtown seems silly to me..... It is up to the people that own the property downtown to develop their property and offer a product that will attract business to downtown.

 

 I think the refund is given for the 500 jobs created by the development; just my guess.

 

If the refund was going to a business employing residents who reside in a distressed area or a business bring jobs to an area best described as a "jobs desert", then the refund of taxes paid could be justified because it would be helping to reduce poverty and providing work in an area with high unemployment.  However, as it appears that MBFS is neither in an impoverished area or is it creating new jobs in a distressed area of the City, I think the designation should be denied.

 

I am not oppose to Alliance and agree that it has produced an enormous amount of economic output for the City; however, while Alliance has flourished, Downtown has not such much.  If you ask me to pick between Alliance and Downtown, I will pick Downtown every time as my passion. And if you ask me which, Alliance or Downtown, as a thriving sub market can benefit the City overall; again I will pick Downtown every time.

 

Downtown Fort Worth is the symbol of the City.  It should be  up to Fort Worth to do everything in its power to develop Downtown.



#33 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 26 October 2018 - 10:10 AM

I see they used the word "retained" in the proposal.  I wouldn't be surprised if there already are 500 people working at their Alliance offices now.  I always get a chuckle when I drive by the packed parking lots around their buildings.  Mercedes Benz automobiles are a small minority of the vehicles in the lots.  A few of the employees might live in Keller, but there aren't very many people making $70,000 a year living in Westlake.  I would bet most do live in Fort Worth, Haslet or Justin, near where they work.



#34 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 20 March 2019 - 06:42 AM

FWBP article by Rick Mauch reports on City Council consideration of sizeable tax abatement for Facebook explansion in Fort Worth.  Others may disagree but in this case I believe it's a wise use of tax abatements.  Though the article does not go into depth about employment possibilities, I would think a data center expansion would mean more jobs for Fort Worth area residents.

 

 

http://www.fortworth...c98f57b522.html



#35 roverone

roverone

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW
  • Interests:Modern Architecture, City Issues

Posted 20 March 2019 - 09:10 AM

* Employment goal of at least four full-time jobs at an average wage of $43,992.



#36 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 20 March 2019 - 08:59 PM

.... City Council consideration of sizeable tax abatement for Facebook explansion in Fort Worth.  Others may disagree but in this case I believe it's a wise use of tax abatements.

 

  Is it wise to provide tax abatements = others make up the difference to one of the 5 riches individuals in the country.  I would be more favorably inclined if it was a local business with roots in Fort Worth needing to expand and asking for tax abatements.



#37 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 23 August 2019 - 09:06 PM

Here are the two points that sell me on the idea of incentives.

 

Michael Hennig, of the city's economic development department, Fort Worth Business Press:

 

 #1 - ...."It not only makes strategic sense for the city, it also makes financial sense. The added value of this high-rise development will bring in an estimated half-million dollars more in new tax revenue to the city over the mid-rise alternative, even after accounting for the incentives."

 

 #2 - .....[He] added "the impact of bringing new high-rise residential projects to downtown also has important implications for corporate attraction efforts. He said office owners and brokers increasingly stress the value of these types of living options to the businesses and professional workforce they are targeting".

 

Of course, you probably know that I have been long calling for the Central Business District to evolve more so into a mix of greater Residential/Tourism/Hospitality Center and being less reliant upon Corporate Offices. 

 

Reemphasizing...this is a strategic economic development plan which given time can make Downtown the home of tens of thousands of residents, a diverse retail. personal services, and tourist attracting events.  With this in place, new towers for workers will sprouts.

 

I conclude that this particular usage of economic incentives is justified.



#38 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 11 September 2019 - 05:50 AM

Hennig's point which you labeled number 2 raises a timely issue.  Just two weeks ago the City Council awarded a TIF to the developer of the proposed Belknap/Lexington high-rise residential project.  And, in another thread here, we get an updated drawing of a proposed 30-story residential tower to be built at 901 Commerce Street.  To my limited knowledge of all things citywide, the difference being that Southern Land Developers did not ask for a tax incentive and did not get one.

 

Being a lawyer and former newspaper reporter I am plagued with logical thinking and connecting the dots, whether that thinking or dot-connecting is faulty or not.  I'm guessing the Council is so desperate for residential towers downtown that it's going to grovel before a developer who says "ain't gonna build one because it's too risky" (my folksy words, please forgive).  So, give the developer some charity in the form of a tax incentive.  Some icing for the cake.

 

Please don't jump on me for saying that I think the sans-TIF 901 Commerce Street venture, if it's realized, puts egg on the Council's face.  Then, again, when the tenant market appears flat prior to starting this project next year maybe Southern Land Developers will sometime approach the Council with their hand out?



#39 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dirty suburbs

Posted 11 September 2019 - 08:22 AM

I completely get your concern, but it's not just a straight handout.  Yes, the developer of the Belknap/Lexington project gets tax incentives that 901 Commerce won't, but there are conditions connected to those incentives that Belknap/Lexington will have to maintain.  I'm not well versed enough to know all of those conditions and their financial impact, but Southern Land obviously weighed the financial considerations of the incentives and decided it wasn't worth it (or at least not yet).  The city gets more than just the new development in return.  Again, making assumptions about the conditions, but they get infrastructure and utility improvements paid for by the developer, they get certain design requirements met, business is steered toward certain types of contractors (minority-owned), etc.  If conditions aren't met, the incentives aren't realized.  I don't have a source, but I remember hearing that Cabela's has never received all of the incentives they were awarded because they failed to live up to all of the conditions of their agreement.  The owner of the T&P building has been awarded tax incentives that have obviously never been realized since the building has not yet been redeveloped.



#40 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,363 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 11 September 2019 - 08:04 PM

You should have been at the forum meeting.  Some of your concerns and questions might have been answered or the issues made more clear.



#41 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 24 March 2020 - 07:02 AM

Before the virus pandemic put everything on hold, the City of Fort Worth decided to financially support the Omni Hotel's expansion project.  Recall the story in S-T, below, that was posted in another thread.

 

https://www.star-tel...e241344321.html

 

At first I thought a $40 million "grant" for Omni was a good idea.  Then again, I thought, shouldn't the Omni be 100% financing it's own project, if there's a market demand for it.  And, why just the Omni?  Shouldn't the city reward other hotel developers in similar fashion?

 

I also wondered about the city's own convention center hotel proposal and, maybe, the city should be saving money to finance that project.  Just food for thought.  But feel free to disagree or point out any glaring misconceptions on my part. 



#42 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dirty suburbs

Posted 24 March 2020 - 04:40 PM

I think you're onto something, but it's going to take a lot of fortitude from the city to stop the handouts when they've been so free with them in the past.  They will miss out on some projects and they need to be prepared for that reality.

 

I'm not even sure if it would show up on this forum since it happened so long ago, but your concerns came up when what became the Omni was initially proposed.  It started off as a city owned and financed facility with Omni partnering as simply a manager.  Other downtown hotel operators protested - the Hilton that became the Sheraton was in the works, there was a proposal to redevelop the T&P office building into a hotel rather than apartments, the Hyatt was looking at a major remodel.  The council was working hard to push it through without a city wide vote and a petition to force a city wide vote was successful.  Rather than risk being swatted down at the ballot box, the council worked out an updated deal with Omni that resulted in the current hotel.  

 

I don't have a problem with the tax breaks for this Omni expansion since the city stands to see huge benefits from this that they might not see from just any other proposed hotel.



#43 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 27 March 2020 - 06:36 AM

I don't have a problem with this, either, particularly during these trying economic times caused by the virus pandemic.  Why criticize the city for a mere grant or two to boost the hotel industry locally  when the federal government has decided to boost the national economy to the tune of $2 Trillion.



#44 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 17 June 2020 - 07:12 PM

"75 corporate jobs at $43,000/yr is what a QT Manager earns".  A QT/Racetrac Combo of 25 stores gets us the same return and I would wager that the QT/RT Combo comes close to or exceeds $75m C.I.

 

  "$73 M in capital investment in the area..for whom, Hillwood (Perot)?

 

 

 

Here is one that may be pulled back; keep an eye on Councilwoman Bivens.

 

Fort Worth Business Press -https://fortworthbus...ibution-center/



#45 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,647 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside

Posted 17 August 2020 - 10:08 PM

I would like to see a full list of projects which Fort Worth has offered abatements too recently. It seems many of the projects never materialize. 



#46 roverone

roverone

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW
  • Interests:Modern Architecture, City Issues

Posted 18 August 2020 - 07:07 AM

I wonder if the city has guidelines for how these things should work, and maybe a list of city priorities / goals that it is willing to invest (through abatements) in.

 

Is there a common contract structure, or is every deal completely unique?

 

I can see how projects would never materialize, because the taxing situation is just one element of a full package that it takes to pull together a project that "pencils" correctly.  We can't expect that 100% of the time groups are going to have every possible other element in place were it only for the taxes when they come to the city.  To get their other ducks in a row they well may need to provisionally have the tax situation lined up.  The city should probably work through a staged approval process where they approve in principle for x number of days a tax arrangement and everything else can be pulled together during that time, and then a final approval assuming the project has not drifted away into something different from the provisional approval (and maybe they do)

 

I think it makes sense for the city to partner in this way with projects that contribute to the city economically, or that will seed development in areas or create things of a character that is desirable.  Commercial entities are always going to look only at the numbers, it takes the city to have the long term vision and care about the intangibles to direct development in the right way.  Commercial entities may come and go, but the city should be here a long, long time and take an interest in planting the kinds of things that are needed to make a strong city for decades to come.



#47 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,647 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside

Posted 30 December 2020 - 09:29 PM

An interesting warning story describing tax incentives in Louisiana. 

 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users