Re: [CPEO-BIF] On Brownfield Subsidies ..

[Sharon Barr <sharonpbarr@earthlink.net>]

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