Against. I don't like subsidies for chain stores moving to Austin. But even more than that, I hate going back on my word. Interested to see if anyone has a better knowledge of the trade offs in terms of money saved vs. increased bond rates.
This is a complicated issue. I've read a lot on these type incentives and I still haven't come to a conclusion of good or bad.
I'm voting against. The money was already promised, and it would be pretty close to criminal to renig on those promises. That's #1. #2, I don't want Austin to be at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to recruiting companies to town in the future. Either we won't be able to use subsidies to recruit, or even if we do, companies will be less likely to look at them because they will see we don't honor commitments we made about those subsidies. Neither puts us in the best position for attracting new business to the area.
^^^ Agree with NAIU The time to fight these tax incentives is up front, not after the City has negotiated with business. This is a rearguard action by the neighborhood organizations to fight WalMart. While I appreciate their efforts to control the traffic issues in their neighborhood, I have to ask "What were you thinking when you bought into property located in close proximity to a mall?" Do they really want Northcross to continue deteriorating? Wouldn't the extra tax revenue from shopping help to offset costs for the entire city? I understand the opposition to big boxes, but it is counter intuitive in this situation. Not to mention the potential liability to the city if they renege after the fact and we all bear the legal expense of defending that fact.
dog, This is about thedomain. That walmart fight is already over. Walkart agreed to build a smaller store.
My bad. Same argument holds true though. Oh well, it would help if I were better educated before I post, but why would I change habits....
About the future subsidies, the proposition leaves some pretty easy ways around it and specifically states that there would be an exception for parts of town that are deemed economically disadvantaged and in need of such a development.
I have a good friend who is a lobbyist for many of the real estate developers in town. They count on the fact that most people don't pay attention to local issues like this. The local media spends less and less time on local issues, but ultimately it is Austin voters who dropped the ball and let this deal happen. I will vote FOR because better late than never. Pay attention Austin. You're going to wake up one day soon realize that you live in the Hills of Dallas.
If it goes through, we will spend more in court costs defending the lawsuit than we'd ever have spent on the subsidies.
A Statesman article last week said that the City would find alternative methods to pay off their obligations to the Domain so that they would not take a hit on future bond ratings. It seems to me that someone has put two different votes into one ballot proposition. There should be one vote to say we would not honor the agreement with the Domain and another vote to decide if the City can make similar agreements in the future.
Also, this proposition only deals with giving incentive to Retail, it does not affect giving incentives to manufacturing/tech companies. If a retail business cannot make a profitable operation without incentives, they should not be here anyway. My tax dollars should not be propping up a store that 99% of the people in Austin cannot even afford to shop at.
I plan on voting for it. I've seen the consequences the against campaign lists as following, and none of them strike me as all that serious. The biggest issue, in my mind, is that the elected representatives are not governing in the best interests of their constituents. Absent voting them all out of office, I think this sends a strong message. Its my understanding, anyway, that the incentives weren't to attract the tax revenue, but rather, to ensure that the developers followed the city's fairly rigid environmental standards. I think in that area, I'd rather go with the stick approach than the carrot. One final point somewhat off topic: I really don't see the benefit of building mixed use commercial with apartments too expensive for the workers downstairs to afford on their wages. Clearly they need to get smaller and taller.
Another way to look at it; Is there any product/service that you can think of that Austin does not have? Is there anything at the Domain that you can't buy somewhere else in town? Rebating their property tax and sales tax makes no sense at all.
It would be a shame to back the city out of an incentives deal. That being said, the city should understand that pass or fail, the fact that this proposition even exists is a clear and well deserved rebuke of a city incentive strategy that isn't delivering for the taxpayers. The Domain deal is a ripoff, and Mueller is, ahem, a disappointment. My point is that NAIU is right in that backing out of this terrible, terrible deal would prevent the city from doing good incentive deals in the future. But that doesn't make the Domain deal a good deal, and when you do bad deals, eventually someone will notice. If the powers that be didn't want the people stepping in, they should have done a better job.
I certainly empathize with the idea, and as a small business owner, it is galling to see huge sums given to big commercial developers for projects like the Domain. I am on the e-mail list for the Stop the Domain group, and read the points they make, and agree with many of them. However, I am still torn about the proposition, and will probably vote against it, for several reasons. First, I really don't think government by citizen group petitions is very effective. There are usually unintended consequences, as we have seen in California, and the regulations often get overturned later by court cases or legislation. Second, opponents claim the proposition would affect the Mueller agreement in unintended ways, although the Stop Domain group denies this. Third, the council which granted the Domain subsides is no longer in office, and later councils have changed the policy due to the Domain subsidy, to where it is unlikely such a deal will happen again. Fourth, the promise was made, and the city will likely have to pay it one way or another, by granting utility concessions or something if this passes. Fifth, it will be years before accounting will tell whether the Domain deal was a good financial deal for the city or not, based on tax revenues flowing from the project versus the amount given the project. I think the fact the citizens rose up in this manner will be enough to caution future city councils against such a subsidy plan in the future, although each project is different, and may be thought to benefit the city's economy overall enough-I guess the professionals on the council should be given the power, and they should be voted out if people don't like what they are doing.
I never promised anything. If you can't run a profitabl business it isn't my fault. Plus, If the economy keeps going the way it is, the Domain is going to be a bum infested wasteland in a few years anyway.
FWIW, when I voted this morning there was a woman holding an anti-prop 2 sign. I asked her why I should vote against it and she handed me a talking points sheet. I told her I wanted her to explain it to me. She couldn't - I asked if she was getting paid to hold the sign. That told me all I needed to know.
If someone on here can really articulate the reasons to vote FOR, and convince me before I go vote, I will change my vote.
Why did the City pony up and how much? Irregardless of shady deals, the Domain is really quite well done. Smartly grown, urbanely dense, amicably pedestrian and architecturally floriharmonious what is not to like?
There is nothing "wrong" with the Domain development in and of itself. It is just the new flavor of "mall" being built these days. The problem with it is, why should the Austin City Council be taking my money in order to give it to a publicly traded company earning $60/share to help them build a mall? They have plenty of money to build it themselves, yet they have the audacity to ask for my money to build a mall that they want me to shop at. Or even worse, the money of those people who live down South, or people who can't afford to shop there, who are all paying for a mall that they will probably never even set foot in it.
I confess ignorance again, and did vote against it, but for education's sake, can someone expand on why this deal was offered to offset environmental regulations, as accurate pointed out? I am well aware that in our community commitment to environmental standards we chase developers out to Wilco or Hays rather than have them set up shop in Austin, but in offering the incentives did we really gain something here?
i'm tired of my property taxes going up because our city council is full of big business fellatio artists. however, the deal was promised, and i agree with naiu that this stuff needs to be attacked up front, not as a rearguard action. we've already passed that crossroads. let's just make sure we don't do it again.
I don't recall the total amount promised, but the initiative wants the city to deny the final remaining payment of $25 million, as I understand it. That area is very important to the city, because it is slated to become the next downtown, and the rail line will go through there, highrise apartment building will be built there, and a lot more development will take place. So the city council wanted the Domain there as a cornerstone for the area. But still, the bottom line is that the city gave a lot of money to private businesses which compete with the city's small businesses which did not get any government funds. Maybe it will eventually pay off in tax revenue, and cause much in-fill development in that area, and be seen as far-sighted. But I still have problems with giving these incentives to private businesses.
