Quote Originally Posted by mugofbeer View Post
I ask this in all seriousness. TIFs are investments in "A" thru tax breaks (revenues you weren't receiving anyway) in order to (hopefully) reap benefits through new tax revenues generated by "A", both directly and through other resulting tax sources. I realize there are TIFs for total long-shot projects and there are TIFs for sure things like Panasonic.

If 1. money is fungible and 2. there were no significant tax revenues being generated by the unused land - why are you against providing an incentive (investment) in order to reap MORE revenues you weren't going to get without the TIF? A $ in new tax revenue is superior to no $ in tax revenue.

While l understand the corporate welfare issue and l wish they were outlawed, they aren't going to be.
I think you assume that the development couldn't happen without the TIF. I think a lot of these developments could happen without TIF--and when that happens, our schools in particular are being hammered by missing out on millions in ad valorem revenues which are now going to pay for bonds for development which would happen with or without TIF. Municipalities are building Wal Marts with TIF.