2006 CPEO Brownfields List Archive

From: Sharon Barr <sharonpbarr@earthlink.net>
Date: 3 Nov 2006 18:44:08 -0000
Reply: cpeo-brownfields
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] On Brownfield Subsidies ..
 
I was the one who mentioned Good Jobs First, and while I don't want this discussion to be about the pros and cons of that particular policy group, I mentioned them mostly because they have done some good analysis of "unintended negative consequences" of another sort (and they, by the way, have promoted linking subsidies to smart growth principles, not just living wage and health benefits). Their work that I was thinking of looked at the spatial distribution of TIFs that were granted around Minneapolis (I think it was that city) and found that that particular form of tax subsidy was granted primarily to businesses locating away from the central city, away from public transit and affordable housing centers, thereby while creating jobs, were also promoting sprawl and unnecessary vehicular commuting
While of course it starts to sound ridiculous when you say that one form of subsidy has to simultaneously promote living wage, affordable housing, brownfield cleanup, reduced greenhouse gases and on and on, a public body does need to lay down some reasonable "strings" that go along with public funds. Let us not forget that these funds already often come with requirements for MBE/WBE participation, Davis- Bacon rules and the like. Tying development subsidies, particularly brownfields subsidies, to smarth growth "corridors" and the like, makes sense to me.


_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields

  References
  Prev by Date: FW: [CPEO-BIF] On Brownfield Subsidies ...
Next by Date: [CPEO-BIF] Salem, New Jersey
  Prev by Thread: FW: [CPEO-BIF] On Brownfield Subsidies ...
Next by Thread: [CPEO-BIF] Salem, New Jersey

CPEO Home
CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index