Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
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.
|
Yeah I have no idea what that land would be worth but I'm sure someone on here would. Not sure if it's material or not, you would assume it would be.
Not a single person on council is in favour of using actual tax dollars for the project. I think the only way that would happen is if the development included a significant amount of low-income housing/mixed use development. If the Flames were smart they'd include a material component of the development concept as having a direct benefit to the city such as low income / subsidized housing which we badly need.