On Friday afternoon I drove by the new location of the Dutch Country Farmer's Market for the first time during their business hours. Yikes, that parking lot has never been that full! At around 1:45pm it looked like cars were about to start lining up on Route 198 to wait for parking spots.
I have to admit that I never visited the market in it's old location (yeah, bad on me) but I do know that the Burtonsville shopping center had a much larger parking lot. Looks like the parking needs might not have been adequately considered before the move. Unfortunately, it's not something that can be easily fixed. If I'm running the Jerry's or the party store that share the shopping center and the situation continues, I'm not gonna be too happy on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
All Aboard For Destinations Unknown - From Baltimore?
When you think of taking a cruise, you probably think of departure points in warmer cities like Miami, San Diego or Los Angeles. But in the last couple of years Baltimore has established itself as a secondary cruise port popular with many cruisers from Maryland and the rest of the mid-Atlantic region. Located next door to Fort McHenry, the Baltimore cruise port terminal is a starting point for three of the BIG cruise companies (Carnival, Royal Caribbean and Celebrity), as well as smaller American Cruise Lines which offers cruises around the bay and down the Intracoastal Waterway. And driving a half-hour to Baltimore sure beats flying south for any Laurel area residents looking at a cruise vacation.
Search for cruises out of Baltimore and you'll find destination options include Bermuda, the Caribbean and northward toward Canada. Do a little online investigation and you'll find that there are numerous ways of finding discounts on Baltimore cruises. You'll discover that there are 2-4 cruises leaving Maryland every week.
Search for cruises out of Baltimore and you'll find destination options include Bermuda, the Caribbean and northward toward Canada. Do a little online investigation and you'll find that there are numerous ways of finding discounts on Baltimore cruises. You'll discover that there are 2-4 cruises leaving Maryland every week.
Friday, August 14, 2009
The Election About Elections
In case you've forgotten - or never heard about it earlier this year - September 8th is the date for a special Laurel city election that could result in significant changes to the city's election process and give the mayor and city council members some very nice pay raises.
The issues...
1. Allowing "early voting", from the Friday before election day up to the day before election day. (Sure, why not?)
2. Change the standard city election day to the first Tuesday in November in odd-numbered years. (Bad idea. Should be trying to get more involvement by holding city elections in even-numbered years like the statewide elections. And shouldn't the wording be "...the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November..."?)
3. Extend current mayor/council terms to fit the change in the election schedule. (Sure, if you're gonna change the schedule, of course.)
4. Change the standard length of a city council term from 2 years to 4 years. (Not sure why this is necessary. It's not like a member of congress who spends most of their term working on getting re-elected. I've read some places where "getting familiar with the job" is given as one of the reasons for the change. Not convinced that there should be that much to learn, but...)
5. Vote for candidates that reside in your ward plus one at-large candidate. (Can't think of any objections to making sure that all parts of the city get represented.)
6. Bump the mayor's salary from $20,000/year to $25,000/year. (Not so sure about this one. 25% is a nice increase, but I don't know when the position last had a salary increase. Most importantly, I have no idea how much work is involved in being mayor. And I'm sure I'm not alone. It would be nice if we could get some insight on "a day/month/year in the life of the mayor". My uneducated feeling is that, with a significant number of full-time city staffers, the mayor's duties probably shouldn't consume $25,000 worth of his time. But I could be wrong.)
7. Bump city council member salaries from $7,500/year to $12,500/year. (Not so sure about this one. 66% is a nice increase, but I don't know when the position last had a salary increase. Most importantly, I have no idea how much work is involved in being...well, you get the idea.)
It's easy to forget about the city elections (don't worry, turnout indicates that you're not alone), but this one is probably worth putting on your calendar.
The issues...
1. Allowing "early voting", from the Friday before election day up to the day before election day. (Sure, why not?)
2. Change the standard city election day to the first Tuesday in November in odd-numbered years. (Bad idea. Should be trying to get more involvement by holding city elections in even-numbered years like the statewide elections. And shouldn't the wording be "...the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November..."?)
3. Extend current mayor/council terms to fit the change in the election schedule. (Sure, if you're gonna change the schedule, of course.)
4. Change the standard length of a city council term from 2 years to 4 years. (Not sure why this is necessary. It's not like a member of congress who spends most of their term working on getting re-elected. I've read some places where "getting familiar with the job" is given as one of the reasons for the change. Not convinced that there should be that much to learn, but...)
5. Vote for candidates that reside in your ward plus one at-large candidate. (Can't think of any objections to making sure that all parts of the city get represented.)
6. Bump the mayor's salary from $20,000/year to $25,000/year. (Not so sure about this one. 25% is a nice increase, but I don't know when the position last had a salary increase. Most importantly, I have no idea how much work is involved in being mayor. And I'm sure I'm not alone. It would be nice if we could get some insight on "a day/month/year in the life of the mayor". My uneducated feeling is that, with a significant number of full-time city staffers, the mayor's duties probably shouldn't consume $25,000 worth of his time. But I could be wrong.)
7. Bump city council member salaries from $7,500/year to $12,500/year. (Not so sure about this one. 66% is a nice increase, but I don't know when the position last had a salary increase. Most importantly, I have no idea how much work is involved in being...well, you get the idea.)
It's easy to forget about the city elections (don't worry, turnout indicates that you're not alone), but this one is probably worth putting on your calendar.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Maybe, Maybe Not
Laurel area residents who oppose bringing slot machines to Laurel Park undoubtedly saw a glimmer of hope in the news recently. Those companies interested in applying for slots casino licenses were required to put in their applications - with $multi-million fees - last week. Interestingly, Magna Entertainment (owner of Laurel Park) didn't bother to include the $28.5 million application fee. Also, a competitor for the sole Anne Arundel slots license has popped up at the Arundel Mills mall.
The total number of slot machines requested in applications throughout the state also fell well below the number allowed by legislation. Not too surprisingly, applicants blame it on the economy and, of course, on the percentage they're supposed to get from slots proceeds.
It'll be interesting to see how this all works out, but here's what I see happening:
- The Arundel Mills folks will try mightily to convince the state of the benefits of their proposal, but there's almost no chance that Magna/Laurel Park won't get the $billions. Magna has never said they would be satisfied with the racing purse and infrastructure subsidies that they would get under November's referendum. And certain leaders of the state legislature have been firmly in Magna's pocket for as long as slots have been under discussion.
- The percentages given to the casino operators will be increased. After all, if Pennsylvania gives too much to slots license holders, then we have to follow suit. Ultimately, we'll have more slots than were discussed this week, but we'll end up with less money going to the state's treasury because of the increased percentages.
- After the percentages have been tweaked, the application process will be reopened. This will allow applicants to increase the number of machines and it'll give Magna a second chance to do it right. (Magna now says they've put the $28.5M into an escrow fund, which may or may not be deemed satisfactory under the terms of the licensing process.)
- As has happened in other places where slots have been used to prop up horse racing, attendance and interest in racing will continue to fall. Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia will retaliate by increasing their subsidies - and within a few years Maryland's horse racing industry will be looking for more, too.
The total number of slot machines requested in applications throughout the state also fell well below the number allowed by legislation. Not too surprisingly, applicants blame it on the economy and, of course, on the percentage they're supposed to get from slots proceeds.
It'll be interesting to see how this all works out, but here's what I see happening:
- The Arundel Mills folks will try mightily to convince the state of the benefits of their proposal, but there's almost no chance that Magna/Laurel Park won't get the $billions. Magna has never said they would be satisfied with the racing purse and infrastructure subsidies that they would get under November's referendum. And certain leaders of the state legislature have been firmly in Magna's pocket for as long as slots have been under discussion.
- The percentages given to the casino operators will be increased. After all, if Pennsylvania gives too much to slots license holders, then we have to follow suit. Ultimately, we'll have more slots than were discussed this week, but we'll end up with less money going to the state's treasury because of the increased percentages.
- After the percentages have been tweaked, the application process will be reopened. This will allow applicants to increase the number of machines and it'll give Magna a second chance to do it right. (Magna now says they've put the $28.5M into an escrow fund, which may or may not be deemed satisfactory under the terms of the licensing process.)
- As has happened in other places where slots have been used to prop up horse racing, attendance and interest in racing will continue to fall. Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia will retaliate by increasing their subsidies - and within a few years Maryland's horse racing industry will be looking for more, too.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Slots Update Meeting
The South Laurel News and Views blog has information about a meeting scheduled for this coming Saturday (1/17) whereat the latest news on slot machines will be discussed. Bringing slots to Maryland is all about putting $billions into the pockets of the owners of Maryland's racetracks, so it's a near certainty that we'll soon have a casino here in Laurel. Obviously it'll have a major impact on our community in the future. And we all need to keep the pressure on if we want to make sure that taxpayers get the best possible deal when the licensing process gets underway.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
More TIF-ing
I've been a little lax about keeping up with the latest Laurel Commons financing issues, but you can participate in the discussion going on over at Rick Wilson's Laurel Connections blog. So far, it's Rick on the "pro" side and commenters taking the "con". City officials have been known to read locally-targeted blogs, so it's an easy way for everyone to get their 2 cents in. (Whatever happened to the "cents" symbol on keyboards?)
Friday, November 14, 2008
Pools and Courts
City council was planning to move ahead with a plan to buy the pool, tennis courts and basketball courts from Patuxent Greens Country Club - until some of the club's neighbors showed up at the meeting with some concerns. Seems they're not too thrilled about the idea of the increased traffic, etc that a publicly-owned facility would bring. Reasonable enough. They also expressed some dismay that the idea wasn't previously presented to nearby homeowner groups.
The cost of the purchase is $910,000. No information about expected maintenance costs was presented in the Gazette's coverage, but pools ain't cheap. I'm not familiar with how much usage the city's existing pool gets, is another pool really needed?
The cost of the purchase is $910,000. No information about expected maintenance costs was presented in the Gazette's coverage, but pools ain't cheap. I'm not familiar with how much usage the city's existing pool gets, is another pool really needed?
TIFs and Tax Credits
According to articles in this week's Gazette and Laurel Leader (strangely, the Leader web site is now part of ExploreHoward.com) Mayor Moe will ask the city council to approve a modifed TIF financing plan for the redevelopment of the Laurel Mall. The amount of the TIF requested by the mayor is $11.4 million, significantly less than the $18 million requested by the developers. There wasn't any indication in the articles about how the developers felt about the new amount, although I think it's safe to assume that an amount like $11.4 million (instead of $11 million or $12 million) must have been arrived at as a result of discussions with the developers. It's probably also safe to assume that the "public amenities" for which the TIF dollars are to be spent will be reduced as a result of the change in the amount.
The mayor is also proposing giving a 50% "tax credit" on the "Admissions and Amusements" tax that would be paid on tickets sold at the new megamovieplex. That "credit" is also supposed to go towards "public improvements", is projected to total about $2.5 million and would expire in something under 5 years. But calling it a "tax credit" is highly misleading because the movie theater isn't paying the tax - theater-goers would be paying and the city/county/state would turn over half of it to the owners.
Council member Smalls has suggested that all of this be the subject of public hearings. Sounds like a real good idea. It would be especially interesting to hear how local business owners feel about subsidizing new competition in the current economic environment.
The mayor is also proposing giving a 50% "tax credit" on the "Admissions and Amusements" tax that would be paid on tickets sold at the new megamovieplex. That "credit" is also supposed to go towards "public improvements", is projected to total about $2.5 million and would expire in something under 5 years. But calling it a "tax credit" is highly misleading because the movie theater isn't paying the tax - theater-goers would be paying and the city/county/state would turn over half of it to the owners.
Council member Smalls has suggested that all of this be the subject of public hearings. Sounds like a real good idea. It would be especially interesting to hear how local business owners feel about subsidizing new competition in the current economic environment.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Latest Mall Plans
As part of their presentation to the city planning commission the owners of Laurel Commons made it known that their overall plan has changed "a bit". According to an article in the Laurel Leader (sorry, didn't know about the meeting to go myself) the project has been scaled back in several areas.
The biggest changes appear to be in the "phase 2" planned for the current Burlington site and neighboring parking lots. A building that was to include a health club has been "downsized" and a parking garage has been eliminated. That new parking structure would've been along Fourth Street between the proposed residential building and the back entrance to the mall (generally in alignment with the current entry to the food court).
The proposed skating rink is gone, replaced by a $75,000 payment to the city.
According to the Leader, entrances to the mall have been tweaked to "make them more aesthetically pleasing". Improvements to the Fourth Street entry would be a good thing. Losing that new Fourth Street parking structure could help, it had the potential of making that entry path canyon-like.
There's some concern from city council members about changes in the materials to be used. Some brick facades will be now be covered with "brick-like" materials. I really don't know what that means. They've also presented cheaper plans for the lights to be placed along Fourth Street.
Looking for ways to cut costs on the project isn't surprising given current economic conditions. And even with the scaled-down proposal, it sounds like they're still looking for "TIF" financial assistance from the city and county. The second anniversary of the initial announcement for the mall is fast approaching - and the project spokesman said they're "still in preliminary discussions with the city" regarding the TIF. I think many of us are getting a little tired of various forms of "bailouts" and "giveaways" (Wall Street, banks, Maryland's racetrack owners), so it'll be interesting to see how the TIF thing plays out.
There was no mention of an updated construction timetable.
The biggest changes appear to be in the "phase 2" planned for the current Burlington site and neighboring parking lots. A building that was to include a health club has been "downsized" and a parking garage has been eliminated. That new parking structure would've been along Fourth Street between the proposed residential building and the back entrance to the mall (generally in alignment with the current entry to the food court).
The proposed skating rink is gone, replaced by a $75,000 payment to the city.
According to the Leader, entrances to the mall have been tweaked to "make them more aesthetically pleasing". Improvements to the Fourth Street entry would be a good thing. Losing that new Fourth Street parking structure could help, it had the potential of making that entry path canyon-like.
There's some concern from city council members about changes in the materials to be used. Some brick facades will be now be covered with "brick-like" materials. I really don't know what that means. They've also presented cheaper plans for the lights to be placed along Fourth Street.
Looking for ways to cut costs on the project isn't surprising given current economic conditions. And even with the scaled-down proposal, it sounds like they're still looking for "TIF" financial assistance from the city and county. The second anniversary of the initial announcement for the mall is fast approaching - and the project spokesman said they're "still in preliminary discussions with the city" regarding the TIF. I think many of us are getting a little tired of various forms of "bailouts" and "giveaways" (Wall Street, banks, Maryland's racetrack owners), so it'll be interesting to see how the TIF thing plays out.
There was no mention of an updated construction timetable.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
"This school is like a prison!"
That's the sort of complaint you might occasionally hear from any high school student, but students at Laurel High School this year will be able to use it to accurately describe the temporary aesthetics of their school.
Given the unfortunate prevalence of "temporary", portable classrooms, you'd think somebody would've come up with some designs that looked a little nicer. But if you've driven by LHS in the past couple of weeks, you might notice the resemblance to your average prison camp.
Thankfully, it is temporary and the construction project currently underway should provide some major improvements to the school and the community.
Given the unfortunate prevalence of "temporary", portable classrooms, you'd think somebody would've come up with some designs that looked a little nicer. But if you've driven by LHS in the past couple of weeks, you might notice the resemblance to your average prison camp.
Thankfully, it is temporary and the construction project currently underway should provide some major improvements to the school and the community.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
The Common Delays
Can't say that I was surprised to read in this week's Gazette that the developers of the Laurel Commons project have requested a delay in the approval process. Things have dragged on for so long now that it seemed inevitable that the current national financial situation would have an impact. I'm guessing that's at least part of what's happened.
The process of attracting retailers to a project like the Commons involves a certain amount of cheerleading, but it's been obvious for awhile that things weren't going as well as we might have hoped at the time of the initial announcements in early 2007. Even 2-3 months ago they were still projecting having a significant portion of the project done in time for Christmas 2009. If you pay attention to the usual pace of construction projects, you had to believe that the required start-up date to make a late 2009 opening passed about a year ago. (Think about it: demolish parking garage, build parking garage, demolish old JC Penney's, construct replacement building, make internal mall improvements, create external entrances to stores on front side of mall - and that's just the biggest pieces. Had to be a 2-year project.)
Perhaps the worst part of this is that the deterioration of the current mall has been allowed (encouraged?) to accelerate this year. By my count somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-12 stores and eateries have disappeared since 1/1/08. Yeah, the most vocal proponents of change wouldn't be excited about continuing the status quo - but 10-12 minor retailers are better than nothing. As I regularly walked around the area this summer, I couldn't help but think how sad it was that all that nice, air-conditioned space was going to waste. Any activity would increase the chances that somebody would come along and say, "You know, that old JC Penney building would be a great place for ..."
I'm no expert on the "usual" pace at which a project this size progresses, but to have a year-and-a-half pass with absolutely nothing - no approvals, no construction - to show for it seems excessive. Buying the Ward's/Burlington property and adding it to the project plans consumed some of 2007, but this should've been underway by the end of last year. At this point I'd feel safe in betting that if this project (or something similar) comes to fruition, it'll be 2012+ before even the first phase is completed.
Speaking of 2012: Something called a "preliminary site plan" has been approved for a piece of the Konterra project by the PG County Planning Board. First construction is now anticipated for 2010 with something open by 2012.
The process of attracting retailers to a project like the Commons involves a certain amount of cheerleading, but it's been obvious for awhile that things weren't going as well as we might have hoped at the time of the initial announcements in early 2007. Even 2-3 months ago they were still projecting having a significant portion of the project done in time for Christmas 2009. If you pay attention to the usual pace of construction projects, you had to believe that the required start-up date to make a late 2009 opening passed about a year ago. (Think about it: demolish parking garage, build parking garage, demolish old JC Penney's, construct replacement building, make internal mall improvements, create external entrances to stores on front side of mall - and that's just the biggest pieces. Had to be a 2-year project.)
Perhaps the worst part of this is that the deterioration of the current mall has been allowed (encouraged?) to accelerate this year. By my count somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-12 stores and eateries have disappeared since 1/1/08. Yeah, the most vocal proponents of change wouldn't be excited about continuing the status quo - but 10-12 minor retailers are better than nothing. As I regularly walked around the area this summer, I couldn't help but think how sad it was that all that nice, air-conditioned space was going to waste. Any activity would increase the chances that somebody would come along and say, "You know, that old JC Penney building would be a great place for ..."
I'm no expert on the "usual" pace at which a project this size progresses, but to have a year-and-a-half pass with absolutely nothing - no approvals, no construction - to show for it seems excessive. Buying the Ward's/Burlington property and adding it to the project plans consumed some of 2007, but this should've been underway by the end of last year. At this point I'd feel safe in betting that if this project (or something similar) comes to fruition, it'll be 2012+ before even the first phase is completed.
Speaking of 2012: Something called a "preliminary site plan" has been approved for a piece of the Konterra project by the PG County Planning Board. First construction is now anticipated for 2010 with something open by 2012.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Off-Topic: Fifth of July
I was trying out my little Xacti CG6 video camera yesterday, if you missed the annual fireworks display you can see about 8 minutes of them in this video posted on YouTube.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Boulevardization, in a good way
In discussions concerning Laurel Commons and Hawthorne Place we've heard about expectations for a certain amount of "cross-pollination" between the two, with HP-living folks providing customers for LC businesses. Considering the real concerns about traffic generated by both projects, providing good connections for walking between the two is important. Today, walking between the two properties ain't easy.
Getting from the south end of the HP property to Route 1 is problematic, but walking through parking lots isn't impossible and hopefully that part of the trip will be improved in the future. The major area needing improvement is getting across Route 1 in the zone between the middle of the Laurel Shopping Center and Cherry Lane.
Really need to expand the medians along that stretch of Route 1 to provide a safe place to stop mid-way on the trip across. Can't expect the one-block-wide "median" that essentially exists north of this zone (after the road does its split), but the coming changes to the LC property would be a good time to look start improving that short chunk of Route 1.
Maybe some of the current grassy buffer on the LC property along Route 1 could be "moved" to the median, with the southbound lanes moved a few feet west? Maybe one of the turn lanes could be sacrificed for some more median space?
This isn't just about the HP-LC connection, assuming those projects happen it's easy to see a future where more redevelopment happens opposite the Commons and south of the Place. (Eventually somebody will decide that the space occupied by those two enormous warehouses - looks like 500,000+ square feet, two or three times the size of the HP lot - could be used to better economic advantage.) May as well start thinking about making those walking connections more hospitable.
And any changes made on the "Eastside" definitely need to include a consistent "sidewalk policy". It's hard to believe that the current situation (sometimes here, sometimes there, sometimes gone) was allowed to evolve the way it has.
Getting from the south end of the HP property to Route 1 is problematic, but walking through parking lots isn't impossible and hopefully that part of the trip will be improved in the future. The major area needing improvement is getting across Route 1 in the zone between the middle of the Laurel Shopping Center and Cherry Lane.
Really need to expand the medians along that stretch of Route 1 to provide a safe place to stop mid-way on the trip across. Can't expect the one-block-wide "median" that essentially exists north of this zone (after the road does its split), but the coming changes to the LC property would be a good time to look start improving that short chunk of Route 1.
Maybe some of the current grassy buffer on the LC property along Route 1 could be "moved" to the median, with the southbound lanes moved a few feet west? Maybe one of the turn lanes could be sacrificed for some more median space?
This isn't just about the HP-LC connection, assuming those projects happen it's easy to see a future where more redevelopment happens opposite the Commons and south of the Place. (Eventually somebody will decide that the space occupied by those two enormous warehouses - looks like 500,000+ square feet, two or three times the size of the HP lot - could be used to better economic advantage.) May as well start thinking about making those walking connections more hospitable.
And any changes made on the "Eastside" definitely need to include a consistent "sidewalk policy". It's hard to believe that the current situation (sometimes here, sometimes there, sometimes gone) was allowed to evolve the way it has.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Commons Town Hall Info
For those who may have missed the recent "town hall" meeting about Laurel Commons, the Commons web site home page now has links to some of the materials presented at the meeting. Unfortunately, they don't (yet) include any of the overhead "site plan"-like drawings that caused some of the concerns I discussed in a previous post. Some nice, pretty pictures, however.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Laurel Commons - Financing
Not surprisingly, there's been plenty of discussion regarding the "TIF" concept (some well-informed, some, well, not so much) since the May 29th town hall meeting. If you haven't been over there already, I'd suggest stopping by the "Laurel Commons Briefing" post on Rick Wilson's "Laurel Connections" blog.
Just to reiterate my concerns: (1) this is a form of assistance unavailable to smaller businesses in Laurel and P.G. County (something that should be given consideration since almost all of the proposed businesses in the mall will be in direct competition with existing businesses), (2) there's no way that an educated go/no-go decision on this subsidy can be made without information about a "no-TIF" option - something that hasn't been, and may never be, presented to the public and (3) the "TIF" assistance seems to be directly contradictory to the "overlay zone" concept, where developers were to be allowed more density in return for building amenities - which now would be paid for with the "incremental" tax proceeds.
Follow-up articles appeared in this week's editions of the Laurel Leader and The Gazette. Comments from city and county officials give hope/concern to both sides of the issue. Everybody seems excited about the concept, but there are some concerns voiced about the size of the subsidy - especially from the county and, surprisingly, even from the city.
Some have suggested that the project is necessary to remain competitive with other nearby communities. I'm sure many will see my way of looking at things as being naive or overly simplistic, but every study I've read about subsidies designed to entice development in one area instead of another indicates that they're almost always counter-productive. We all have a certain amount of income available to pump into the economy. If you spend it in Laurel, city taxes are paid and there's one level of benefit to the community. If you spend in Prince George's County, some of the taxes you pay will go to the county and there's a slightly smaller benefit to our community. If you spend it elsewhere in Maryland, you'll pay state sales tax and we'll get a smaller benefit.
When determining if something like a "TIF" to be worth doing, you have to consider the incremental (there's that word again) benefit from having the bucks spent in Laurel instead of elsewhere in the county or the state. Yes, I know that's not the only consideration (driver of future development, shorter automobile trips, etc), but the idea of using public money to help fund "competition" with other communities is usually a bad idea.
For one of my favorite examples, read any of the numerous studies about the $billions that have been wasted on public funding of professional sports facilities. There's a certain amount of discretionary income that is available to be spent in any community. Every dollar spent at a baseball game is one less dollar spent at a movie theater...or concert...or dining out...etc, etc. Tax proceeds from that discretionary spending are unchanged and, meanwhile, the community is out the amount used to build the stadium. Similar analysis applies to any kind of subsidized development.
Just to reiterate my concerns: (1) this is a form of assistance unavailable to smaller businesses in Laurel and P.G. County (something that should be given consideration since almost all of the proposed businesses in the mall will be in direct competition with existing businesses), (2) there's no way that an educated go/no-go decision on this subsidy can be made without information about a "no-TIF" option - something that hasn't been, and may never be, presented to the public and (3) the "TIF" assistance seems to be directly contradictory to the "overlay zone" concept, where developers were to be allowed more density in return for building amenities - which now would be paid for with the "incremental" tax proceeds.
Follow-up articles appeared in this week's editions of the Laurel Leader and The Gazette. Comments from city and county officials give hope/concern to both sides of the issue. Everybody seems excited about the concept, but there are some concerns voiced about the size of the subsidy - especially from the county and, surprisingly, even from the city.
Some have suggested that the project is necessary to remain competitive with other nearby communities. I'm sure many will see my way of looking at things as being naive or overly simplistic, but every study I've read about subsidies designed to entice development in one area instead of another indicates that they're almost always counter-productive. We all have a certain amount of income available to pump into the economy. If you spend it in Laurel, city taxes are paid and there's one level of benefit to the community. If you spend in Prince George's County, some of the taxes you pay will go to the county and there's a slightly smaller benefit to our community. If you spend it elsewhere in Maryland, you'll pay state sales tax and we'll get a smaller benefit.
When determining if something like a "TIF" to be worth doing, you have to consider the incremental (there's that word again) benefit from having the bucks spent in Laurel instead of elsewhere in the county or the state. Yes, I know that's not the only consideration (driver of future development, shorter automobile trips, etc), but the idea of using public money to help fund "competition" with other communities is usually a bad idea.
For one of my favorite examples, read any of the numerous studies about the $billions that have been wasted on public funding of professional sports facilities. There's a certain amount of discretionary income that is available to be spent in any community. Every dollar spent at a baseball game is one less dollar spent at a movie theater...or concert...or dining out...etc, etc. Tax proceeds from that discretionary spending are unchanged and, meanwhile, the community is out the amount used to build the stadium. Similar analysis applies to any kind of subsidized development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
