Community wide CIP
Just want to consolidate the various comments I’ve made about this plan
Tax incentives to lure this type of development are a good. Its achieves several goals.
- mitigates harm from uncompetitive tax and utility rates
- Buys us the time we need to slowly make adjustments to tax rates. If we achieved a freeze on tax rates while every other jurisdiction in the region raises their’s taxes and fees each year. 10 years could do a lot to narrow the competitive gap.
- Buying us 10 years may allow us to redistribute tax burdens between Industrial, Commercial and Residential to make them more fair. These type of adjustments are better received phased in over time
- As an aside, I’d like to see more distinction between commercial office and commercial retail (lg and small). We should offer incentives to lure office jobs/call centers/head offices to our region while not giving these same rates and incentives to big box retailers. Or give incentives to those businesses on main streets to put them on a more level playing field with the cheap/land/poor site plan controlled big box
Here are my caveats
1. TIF’s have received mixed results throughout North America, some have been phenomenal successes while some have miserably failed.
2. We have a build anywhere belief in this city. Maybe our desperation justifies it but maybe it doesn’t
Monocle Magazine highlighted that directing new manufacturing jobs to the core not only helps with residential intensification but it adds to the diversity of those residents and workforce that also has benefits. Instead of having a downtown resident base that is exclusively made up of office and hospitality workers it would be amazing to add skilled trades and manufacturing jobs to that. Imagine living at a downtown condo and walking to your factory job? Brings us back to how our cities were created in the first place.
- That same “build anywhere” belief is wrongly touted by our Chamber of Commerce and anyone who questions it has been attacked for being anti business. The City Wide CIP has a legitimite basis for its missing location due to a tactic of trying to develop the airport but why couldn’t they have just made the airport the exception to target of trying to direct that investment to the core.
- I’ve talke to Van Der Dolen about this being some sort of leftist social engineering scheme that stifles investment but its been applied successfully else where. In london, they don’t let office bldgs go up outside of the core and they definitely don’t allow gov’t offices to locate in outskirt areas like tecumseh. stopping sprawl is a business retention plan in itself. You can’t have a business retention plan if you dont’ want to protect our mainstreets/BIA’s.
3. This CIP does not subsitute for other CIP’s. The sustainable downtown CIP was put on hold for this and the two have nothing to do with each other. They are both extremely important and should not be confused together. Sustainable downtown CIP has to do with residential intensification which would solve a whole host of other problems in our city that are separate and independent from the issues covered by the community wide CIP
The city councillors signed a residential intensification plan that the province mandate they write. That document has no implementation plan or basis for achieving its goals. I think its dishonest to write a sign a plan that you had no intention of acting on. I think every day that goes without any action on this plan is another day that I was lied to as a voter of Windsor.
CRITICISM FROM OTHERS WHICH I WOULD CRITICIZE
That our politicians are not telling us risks of plan - I’m pretty sure that’s what the open houses are for. If anyone wants to question, they can present there
- taxpayers burdened with costs that these companies should pay or city forgoing revenue. The basis of a CIP is that it lure’s a business that wouldn’t have otherwise located here. Of course you can make an argument that this or that business would have located here, the dearth of new manufacturing business start ups sans incentives sort of makes a pretty solid case otherwise. If we forgive taxes on a business that wouldn’t have located here anyways then we are forgiving money we wouldn’t have received anyways, costing us nothing. If we would have offered these incentives 10 years ago, we would be receiving the full taxes on new businesses today.
- What about Development charges and infrastructure costs -We offer many of those to new investments anyways but on a nudge nudge wink wink basis. The only difference with this CIP is that they are documented and better presented to investors before they even have to sit down and ask.
- existing businesses competitively disadvantaged - I think its incumbent on someone showing an example. I think this is a legitimate concern and a reason to exercise caution. However I’d like to see someone make this case. I think its incumbent on an existing competitor to go to the city and stand up for themselves.
4. eddie and not eddie “cabals” or groups
The fact that our mayor has a good relationship with investors like Mr. Farhi is part of his job description. The anti Eddie or pro eddie distinction is absurd. Those who argue this are mixing up the causal relationship. There is no evidence that someone who feels wronged feels it was caused because they dislike our mayor. They dislike our mayor because somehow they perceive they were wronged. The reverse goes for his supporters. No evidence can be shown that they received good treatment because of their support, only that they support him because they were treated good leading to more good treatment and more support. Farhi didn’t get a good deal because he supported our mayor, he supports our mayor because he got a good deal.
Post Feedback
I am very skeptical of this CIP. I think we should reduce property taxes for every business right down the line. I hate when government picks and chooses who gets special benefits. This will breed corruption, with probably more spent on consultants, studies and not to mention lawyers. I thought we were about smaller government here. How is this going to help hurting businesses that are struggling to survive while continuing to be waxed by property taxes, HST and HST on your property taxes if you rent.
The consulting money is spent, it was spent on our own planning department
Corruption is doubtful since every application is publicly vetted
lawyers will only be a problem if someone is denied that feels they deserve it.
problem with lowering taxes for everyone is that if for example this program yielded 1 million in incentives. spread that amongst existing businesses and you it will make absolutely no impact.
The voters of Windsor and city council said number one priority is economic development, this is the only tool so it looks like we have no choice.
I felt uncomfortable with this proposal upon my first review last week and feel even more so now.
Here’s why;
As you say Mark it prolongs the “build anywhere” philosophy. This would be great policy in 1974 for a city with a uniform set of challenges. Unfortunately, it’s 2011 and Windsor is a city with a fully serviced core area full of sunk investments that is facing serious decline, while we do have some development in expensive-to-service suburban areas.
I have deep discomfort with an elected council picking winners and losers.
Concern about the choices of targetted sectors. The word “food” is only mentioned twice in the document, and this seems like a major oversight for a city located next to one of the most productive agricultural areas on earth.
I have the impression that only larger business would be able to take advantage of the measures. Admittedly, small business owner would be better positioned to address this, so I invite somebody to do so.
No mention of residential intensification or policy directed toward it.
There’s some mention of adapative re-use, but it seems fairly token.
The provision that will allow council to waive development fees city wide will result in growth not paying for growth.
Yikes.
I’d prefer a plan that targets commercial development in the core areas of the city, address residential intensification, eliminate development charges for downtown development, seriously tackle adaptive re-use (there are probably very good reasons to provide tax increment financing for the re-development of buildings such as churches that will brings them onto the property tax, for example) and limits the role of council in determining business feasibility, appropriate targetted sector, etc.
And if we can’t agree on that…then a freez on commercial tax rates would send a positive sign to investors, and our ability to do that will be in doubt under this proposal.
I will be away on the day of the consultation. Could somebody please pass along my comments?
First of Tristan, lets be clear. The city waived development fees on new industrial already, they just did it on a wink wink, nudge nudge basis where they would meet after someone expressed interest. All the city wide CIP does is formalize that arrangement making it transparent to all.
Obviously I wholeheartedly agree with your preferred plan but I think the point is that the two are mutually exclusive. (CAPS FOR EMPHASIS NOT YELLING) IN THE WORLD I WANT TO LIVE IN ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO COME AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OTHER. BOTH ARE IMPORTANT, BOTH SHOULD HAPPEN
In my view this plan is the will of the electorate, pretty much every winning councillor and mayor won on campaigning on the campaign of city playing economic developer. TIF’s is one of the largest tools in the city incentive toolbox. How could the city not proceed on using this tool
As I said, some TIF’s have failed miserably, some have met wild success. Maybe this city wide one will work but my support for it is qualified that it doesn’t come at the expense of a residential intensification plan. But the optimist in me says that once this is under their belt, they can move on to an actual implementation plan for residential intensification that includes
1. A market rate housing study that determines what obstacles prevent downtown from being a housing options for downtown workers. what incentives would be required for those workers to choose downtown as a place to live. the type and price point of housing those who could be swayed would want.
2. specific goals on how much they want to increase core population by each year (100? 500? 1000?). of how many vacant spaces they want to see occupied.
3. A specific plan to attract each and every one of those residents, rent every existing space
4. A specific goal on how many new housing units of different housing market points they want to see built by the private sector
5. A specific plan of incentives to see each of those housing units built
Tristan, you are right on the money here. How will this help the core, small commercial or small industrial in this city? Mark, what does $1 million have to do with anything? I have read that the city is spending $10 million to get Samsung and it’s 300 jobs. Does this even include loss of taxes they were collecting from Valiant? So, if instead of doing three of these deals (creating 900 jobs) the city reduced taxes across the board for commercial and industrial by the tune of 30 million spread over say 5 years, I would argue more than 900 jobs would be created and it would be felt by the tax base. It would also encourage growth in the core.
lets not overlook that small and medium businesses will benefit from ‘general’ economic growth in the area. as a small business owner in the hospitality sector I can only hope and assume that growth in other sectors and ‘general’ economic growth will only lead to more people spending more money in area establishments. That being said I do agree with many of Tristan’s concerns about core intensification. I believe it should have been a major component of the first phase of economic development. In fact, once development begins under this plan I would argue that it may be harder to refocus efforts on core intensification.
Jason
What do you mean by the loss of Valiant? You talk about their revenue as if Windsor has an infinitely long guarantee of that revenue. Some investigation may yeild the information that a dispute with BMW and payment has the entire company in jeopardy. My sources say that the bank is in there big time and this deal is saving whats left.
Rino, tristan’s core intensifcation concerns mirror mine and you might be right about this plan taking the place of core intensification efforts. However its incumbent on us to not let it