Jump to content

Talk:Tax increment financing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Graph

Stop removing the graph. Calling it poorly worded is a low brow excuse for removing it.

Especially since you did not explain what is poorly worded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graphman2 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

haven't seen the graph in question but I have seen the lazy editors that that increase their reputation by reverting huge amounts of text when at worst mild editing would have "made it clearer"/"better formatted"/"insert your own petty excuse for tearing up hours of work in three seconds"

I suggest you add the graph to the talk page (here for this article but talk page of whatever graph is about) to show the community the graph... that way you have community viewing it in a place the slash-hacks are not supposed to touch it... (after admiting it is a graph that only needs different legend/labels they cannot claim it is span, which is only thing that can be removed from a talk page by a different editor (you can remove your own though) --Qazwiz (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

This graph is NOT a representation of the theory of TIF, but it just one result and is clearly negatively biased. This would be appropriate in a section of the downside or negative impact of TIF. It is NOT appropriate as the main image and has no place in a general description or definition of TIF theory. Jjjameson333 (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Wish to either expand or reconfigure entry over three or four months, anyone wish to collaborate?

This entry needs something more of something. Does anyone want to help me rewrite it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.19.110 (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I will help with this. I am very familiar with the subject matter (good & bad) and wish to fix this article. It has some truths but also many mistakes. jjjameson333@gmail.com Jjjameson333 (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

NCBG

If people have memory, download the NCBG research and upload the research to a website that can be maintained after July, 2007. Then place the NCBG links (external links) to that website for the duration.

Academic studies or articles

If there are any recent academic studies or articles, please place them in the external links.

POV

  • all edits since around sept of 2011 are poorly done and seem biased in favor of TIFS, ctiticism should be left to critics. California has now discontinued the use of TIFs which says something since that is where they started. The intro was once short and informative, now it just seems designed to discourage people from reading. If you have to discourage knowledge to promote a product it says something about the product. On the graph controversy, if you want a graph it should be down in the article further and WELL DESIGNED easily read etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.233.28 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This text of this page reflects an exclusively positive view of TIFs. As an avid opponent of TIFs, I feel as though a contrary perspective is needed, but I also don't feel like I can do it fairly. -- Seth Ilys 05:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As I read the page, I see no active positive message. There is no criticism written either -- if you explain why you disagree with TIFs here, I will edit the page to objectively reflect your remarks. --nelsonleese 18:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "One manifestation of government-developer incest is the insidious Tax Increment Financing (TIF) zone. Instituted in 1977 and operating in 44 states, TIFs center around freezing the portion of property tax dollars that go into social services at current levels for some designated period of time, up to 30 years. The extra money earned from inflation and rising property values is channeled towards reinvestment in the neighborhood via city subsidies for developers. For an area to be designated a TIF by the mayor and city council, it must be officially considered 'blighted'. The idea is that after all this city-supported development, the area will no longer be a haven for blight.
Neither will the area be a 'haven' for low-income people, who get their social services and then their homes taken away as rents and property taxes rise in response to the reinvestment. What's worse, the excess money can be moved between TIF zones that border each other, so low income residents in a newer TIF area may be paying to further develop an area already gentrified by an existing TIF. Because TIFs can last for so long, developers may continue to get subsidies long after the area resembles a Starbucks-laced American Dream." Slingshot Issue #074 article Title:"Gentrification" sub "Real estate, the root of evil" Paragraph 4
Feel free to change the page to objectively take this point of view into consideration. 72.128.82.91 08:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
link updated --Qazwiz (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I changed the name of a heading to bring attention to the fact that TIFs are under dispute -- I then included a summary of the opposing arguement with a link to gentrification. I don't know how to do the cite properly for the above listed web page.
Ileft most of the article as it was, however. Whether one agrees with the long term result of TIF districts, they do put money into the system, and this page only points to TIFs as a tool to accomplish just that end.--nelsonleese 18:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If you have an article or a report that questions the use of TIFs, just join in. this is Chriscarlos. I have added external links that are mixed, though most questioning the use of TIFs.

This article is much improved, as far as POV. I'd still like to see more examples of TIF mechanics (full lifecycle). --Overhere2000 03:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To see an example of TIF mechanics (full lifecycle), expand the graph

[[

File:TIF graph.pdf|thumb|right|graph showing TIF results. Click to enlarge]].

I checked the graphs links, and categories and added some catagories from this article to the image, I do understand the math and this graph is about as clear as it gets when it comes to illustrating the down side of TIF's and BID's ( Business improvement districts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_improvement_district ). Though i understand the math i could not do it justice( explaining the math ), other than to say that "government-developer incest"..."center around freezing the portion of property tax dollars that go into social services at current levels for some designated period of time, up to 30 years." is stating the case mildly, while "...gentrification..." is way soft! ...they do ( NOT ) put money into the system... See the GRAPH and please, DO, click to enlarge, The "cost of basic services" is not shown in red for no reason ( this is trash service, road repair and improvement, snow removal, disaster recovery... think of tornado warning systems in need of repair or never purchased... ) and all that red ink below in the triangle is what goes into that developers pockets ( it does ( NOT ) come back into the "...system, and this page only points to TIFs as a tool..." i can only accept that statement if the tool in question is a screwdriver and the "john q. publics", like us, are the screws. SORRY FOR ALL THE YELLING in this comment but i arrived late ( as usual ) to the discussion, with the graph shown full sized or larger the article would be more balanced, as is, on the whole, " This article is much improved, as far as" ...n... "POV. " "?rant?" JSo9-10 (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Hey guys, I'm new to this conversation, but this graphic is definitely POV. "Red ink" is a loaded term. Can we find a way to improve things? Perhaps the thing to do would be to add in some language that notes that this is the critics' view (and then pair that with the supporters' view). Karichisholm (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No the graph is not POV. In fact it is an honest representation of most uses of TIF. It has been fully vetted by lawyers and TIF experts. It is far more accurate and honest than anything any Urban Renewal agency ever created. It is precisely accurate to refer to the missing revenue as red ink. That is the funding hole left behind by diverting the increment property taxes.

Every graph or chart I have seen created by urban renewal agencies has omitted both the rising cost of basic services and the fact that the increment consists of every property tax increase throughout the district that would have happened without the Urban Renewal plan or projects. In most cases those dollars are a substanial portion of the entire increment. In many cases the UR plan & projects generate very little new revenue compared to the revenue taken. And of course more property taxes are also taken from basic services due to debt service costs.

I have witnessed UR agency staff and politicians telling people that all of the revenue in the increment is created by the UR projects. This is of course a bald faced lie.

So next time one of you tries to change this to obscure the truth about TIF you better bring more than usual misrepresentations by the folks whose jobs depend on these TIF ponzie schemes. Graphman2

I see the peddlers of UR schemes are back trying to remove the honest graph that has been thoroughly validated by lawyers and Tax Increment Financing experts. I'll undo every attempt.

This is expected. The proponents of TIF don't like voters to know how it works. They prefer the dishonest municipal version that leaves out rising costs, how funding is diverted and how most of the increment would have been availble for those rising costs without any Urban Renewal plan or projects at all. Graphman2

I am Graphman2 and someone keeps taking down the TIF I created and orignially posted. This last time they took the graph off of the commons claiming there was a copyright violation. There is no copyright and anyone is free to use the graph.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tax_increment_financing/Archive_1&oldid=836577041"