To the previous writer – those 500 who relocate here and pay all individual taxes do not offset the amount that is put in to the developers pockets, consolidating property, and leaving the potential for the individual to invest at a big zero.

This kind of stimulated growth will always have its winners and losers. With outside corps being subsidized, they tend to be the winners. Its too bad really.

I wonder if they subsidized T-Sheets new build in Eagle, the same way?

Great article!

Winners: There is no question that the developers win in this game. The developers win big. How? The developers get subsidized land deals, loans and in some case free assets to off set the cost of their projects. Things like parking garages, and in the case of Tommy Alquist an entire foundation for a building that is also a bus station.

In the case of Tommy Alquist his father perfected the art of getting the locals governments to to expand Urban Renewal Zones and then take advantage of the freebees.

The use of urban renewal zone today creates a windfall of cash for local mayors to use as they please. It is basically a way to grab all the taxes of the improved value and have access to it outside the voters reach.

In Meridian a cornfield was designated as an urban renewal district. The only thing “Urban” in the area was the multi level gopher holes in the field. There was really nothing “urban” about it.

Regarding the incentives to business owners from out of town there is a very clear disadvantage to local business owners.

We call it the “WalMart” effect. The city gives a business like Walmart or in this case Payology discounts on payroll and property taxes that the local business that has been in the area for years don’t get. This gives the out of town folks a huge advantage.

Having worked to set values on businesses over many years I have yet to see a business whose competitor got a deal improve it’s own balance sheet. In fact the local long time business always looses value.

Urban renewal and business incentives are unnatural motions to the natural market – the winner is the local government and their cronies not the business community. When you unbalance the market in one area someone suffers while another wins at their cost.

A conservative view of that situation would be: “Meanwhile 500 more workers will be paying auto taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and state income tax, to fund the needed schools, sewers, roads, police, and fire services.”

Only leftist “economists” believe the government loses money when workers move out of the community (business is dying), and loses money when workers move into the community (business is growing).

Providing incentives for business recruitment and growth is not the same as providing an unfair advantage to one business over another. Let’s keep those two issues separate.

EDITOR NOTE–Regarding “incentives,” let’s put the issue at grassroots level (pun intended). If the BLM and Idaho Water Resources grant grazing and water rights to an out of state cattle company, while the existing Idaho rancher has to provide forage on his own deeded land and pay for a permitted water well, we think that sort of business recruitment and growth is EXACTLY the same as providing an unfair advantage…regardless of how many cowboys are hired or how many F-150s they gas up.