I just wonder how much different things would have been if Norman had spent the $30 million on downtown instead and didn't do the TIF district. UNP was billed as this great generator of sales taxes but 60% of those sales taxes have to be spent on UNP.
OUDaily.com | Norman sells new ?lifestyles?
Anyhow, UNP exists so really no point it discussing it.
It was billled as "destination retail"- not sure if a Dress Barn counts. Seems to me mostly redundant retail. Shop eat drink party local!! It's the best way to support the community.
Totally agree. Instead of investing money into creating something unique for Norman (you can still have these kinds of shops that are found in UNP in a "downtown" setting...see Southlake, Texas)....we've got UNP which is just a regular, normal, non-unique shopping center with redundant retail. It's "great" for sales tax, sure...but nothing to boast about.
This has been said before, but the part of UNP that was supposed to be "unique" still has not been built yet. The Target, Pei Wei, Kohl's, Academy, all of that development was intended to come first and generate traffic. It really is the Legacy Park and the Town Center area that will make or break this development, so in spite of some missteps, it's possible that this could still work out fine. BTW, people shop in UNP because it is convenient and there are stores and restaurants that people like (Super Target, Qdoba, Academy, etc.).
I'd rather have property taxes.
Sales tax is very regressive, only covers goods and not necessarily services (selling law service, etc.). I'd rather have my city chiefly concerned with raising the city's property values because that benefits directly the city and its citizens. Sales tax creates an environment where, cities are trying to bring in any kind of business, fast food establishment, and whatever else to bring in the passer-by dollars.
That's just my opinion though! Everyone's entitled.
I think it was a comment more about focusing efforts nearly 100% on the tax collection side and not considering if the development is self-supporting on the tax spending side. In other words, does it cost more tax money to support UNP than if all the stores in UNP were located where existing infrastructure was already located (and is still located).
Okay I can understand that. So then let me ask you, do you currently own and pay property taxes? As a property owner I would rather see a sales tax in place to raise revenues and leave my property taxes alone.
If that is what they meant, then I would fully agree with that. I would much rather have seen the development all go into Downtown Norman. Of course I also wonder what push back they would have received in the demolition of some of the closer neighborhoods to make room for structures like Target, Embassy Suites, and also building more structures to house the town center style stores. Of course nothing says that it all had to go into Downtown, since I'm sure Embassy would rather be off the interstate and Target would have likely just upgraded their old location on Main.
Nope, I currently don't own property and don't pay property taxes. It wouldn't change my opinion on the tax structure though.
I just feel like it's better served to the citizens of the community if the city is focused on creating better valued property in order to receive funds than doing its hardest to bring in as much retail stores as possible, which we know (most of the time) creates ugly commercial development and streetscapes and doesn't necessarily enhance the livability of a city.
EDIT: We have it backwards here. We're focused on getting sales tax dollars (which again, creates a lot of ugly environment) before making the city and streets an attractive place for people. We ugly up one part of the city to fund other things down the road. I'd rather "pretty" up the city first, which will create places where businesses and people WANT to be. (See University Place, WA....re-did a street-scape and it's created tons of development along a corridor. They focused on beautifying a portion of the city first and then it brought in great development. The street's name is Bridgeport Way.)
But again, it's all preference!
Well then you are looking at trying to raise money to "pretty up" parts of the city which is either going to be funded through raising sales or property taxes. Perhaps when you get to that that position where you actually own property and send that nice healthy check to the county each December (unless it's bundled with your mortgage of course), then your viewpoint may be a bit different.
I see where you are coming from that better looking property = higher values = higher property taxes paid in. However, if you are wanting all these other items and want to exchange the income for funding them...then you are asking to raise property tax amounts without increasing the values of the properties themselves.
You are right it is all preference, but we have to look at the impacts higher property taxes will also have for businesses and people who are looking to locate here. While it might seem okay to trade out higher sales for property taxes, if you push people away from locating in your city then you aren't going to get anywhere. If they get too high in Norman, nothing is stopping people from setting up in areas that are part of Moore or OKC even though they essentially could be Norman.
It's different for everyone I suppose. We are more in a tax discussion now than UNP, so I'll make this my last comment on the subject. I would much rather see us in a system where we just have a flat sales tax on everything (no property or income taxes) and let everyone decide how they want to spend their money. This then doesn't penalize home and property owners who prefer to get something for our money (versus renting and throwing it away).
here's a thought on an upside to sale taxes, especially if you get a lot of here, spend and then gone people (OKC in general, Norman via OU, etc.) and many, others places:
I believe it is estimated about 1/3 of MAPs3 funds, as well as prior MAPs programs, came from outside non-OKC folk. Let that sink in a moment. Roughly 259 million of the 777 million of MAPs3 come from outside OKC. So, in other words, one could pretend the visitors are covering the convention center costs and OKC folks are covering the rest of MAPs3.
As for renters and property taxes, yeah, renters pay. Same as they pay for the water in rentals that 'include' free water.
Norman kicks a nice kick in the balance seat numerous weekends a year via sales taxes and hotel taxes, and yeah, buddy, y'all come see us more often if ya wanta.
I wouldn't want to see a big tick upward in sales taxes, but there is room for some growth.
lets get back to UNP
Projects at Norman's University North Park extend beyond retail | News OK
So I guess its safe to say the advanced manufacturing center and planned office park are dead or on hold again, lol. This is crazy, UNP wil be nothing but a strip mall destination. They also lost the big PETCO deal a few years ago. The City of Norman and the Norman Economic Development Coalition need to get their act together. I mean when was the last time Norman attracted a big time employer?
There are currently 33 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 33 guests)
Bookmarks