Quote:
Originally Posted by heep223
Well that's just a silly analogy. There are other benefits to the city, including tax benefits (even if it's not the most optimized use of the land), general benefit of the public having a new venue for sports and entertainment, the profile it will give the city on the world stage.
Not saying it's the best use or even that they should get public money but a) your comparison is apples and oranges and b) I believe the city actually has come out and said they may be willing to look at vending land and/or building infrastructure, just no direct public money.
|
I guess the key question to ask is assuming there are actual incremental tax benefits (which is highly debatable) are they going to even approach the value of the land given?
Remember what the alternatives are for the city: they can give the land away and get new development and taxes or they can sell the land AND get all those development fees and new taxes (and the taxes would likely be higher).
Finally, remember that property taxes are net neutral to city budgets. First new taxes go to new services that that those new developments will use, second new taxes do not mean a new boon to the city budget. They might shave off some percentage of the mill rate for your own property tax but property taxes are set to equalize to the city's spending needs.