I hope St. Louis is starting to realize that lowering taxes results in increased investment, and in the long term, this results in increased revenues from taxes. Next, I hope St. Louis cuts the 1% earnings tax as this is very unattractive for the city. I know of several county companies, that I interviewed with, that mentioned the 1% tax as a reason they avoided the city of St. Louis when they planned where their offices would be located; the 1% tax the city has imposed has made the city even less attractive for investment and employment. With the leadership St. Louis has had(fixing city boundaries, mass demolishion of historic structures), it shouldn't be too surprising to see this small thinker mentality still evident today.
- 1,493
^There are at least 3-4 threads on that topic. Earnings tax cannot be eliminated at this time because it is 30% of the city's overall budget. It's very easy to just say "Uh, the city should eliminate earnings tax". It's very hard to actually find a replacement for said funds and retool the city budget. Where do you propose the city regain that 30% of its working yearly budget? I guarantee you do not have a viable answer to that question.
It's easy to see why many businesses avoid the city when they are already carving up the firms earnings before the business has actually set up shop. Future revenues to be earned by the Ballpark Village are already "our" money. Disgusting...
Urban Elitist wrote:^There are at least 3-4 threads on that topic. Earnings tax cannot be eliminated at this time because it is 30% of the city's overall budget. It's very easy to just say "Uh, the city should eliminate earnings tax". It's very hard to actually find a replacement for said funds and retool the city budget. Where do you propose the city regain that 30% of its working yearly budget? I guarantee you do not have a viable answer to that question.
I think an interesting study would be of current cities who operate without a city earnings tax (cities of similar size and demographics). I think you would find we have a very artificially bloated city government - if other cities can function without this earnings tax we should be able to as well. I am sure it would require some adjustment to our city government, but everyone would benefit through a fat reduction exercise.
- 1,493
^Those studies have been done. Links to them are posted in their respective threads. Obviously eliminating the earnings tax would help the city attract businesses. But the point is they NEED the funding and can't simply eliminate the tax cold turkey. Anyways I don't want to go off topic. If you want to continue discussing this, use the search function to track down the earnings tax thread, read the thread. Then if you have anything new to add besides "Uh, the city should eliminate this tax" post it there.
Urban Elitist wrote:^Those studies have been done. Links to them are posted in their respective threads. Obviously eliminating the earnings tax would help the city attract businesses. But the point is they NEED the funding and can't simply eliminate the tax cold turkey. Anyways I don't want to go off topic. If you want to continue discussing this, use the search function to track down the earnings tax thread, read the thread. Then if you have anything new to add besides "Uh, the city should eliminate this tax" post it there.
Geez lighten up UE. When I can free up some time I will research it and bring a post worthy of your time (and you can leave the attitude along with the misquote at the door - both are counterproductive).
It is pretty clear that subsidizing stadiums does not benefit the downtown area because individuals spend their money inside and not in the surrounding area. Whether the TIF will benefit downtown when referring to BPV I am not sure.
Will people who do not live or work in BPV spend their money in BPV? Meaning people that go to the stadium for a game, say from the County, will they save some of their money and spend it at BPV?
How many residents will actually move into BPV and how many businesses? How long will it take for these units to sell? Will said residents be new City residents or will it only relocate existing City residents?
Where are the number showing that Cordish needs the TIF!
Developers play this game everyday whereas governments do not have as much experience in this area. There is an asymmetrical balance of information in favor of the developer which puts the City at a disadvantage.
St. Louis should be skeptical and there should be definitive proof that TIF is needed and will benefit downtown. Subsidy of stadiums does not benefit downtown and if we spend more money we should see some persuasive proof.
I am not sure if TIF applies here but when the City issues tax abatement the SLPS must also abate the tax per Missouri Law. Does this apply to the TIF district as well?
I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five (people) that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.
Did he really?
Earnings Tax:
Well we need more property taxes first. If we keep issuing tax abatement then we will have the earnings tax for at least 20 years, depending on when abatement periods end and when they are no longer issued. Even then it is hard to say if the earnings tax will ever end. Individuals who are not paying property tax are paying earnings tax. In any event, we would need a lot more middle-high income residents owning property (and paying their tax). I read that the SLPS taxing district is collecting only 90 percent of their taxes thus they loose 15 million per year.
I think the best way to attract new residents and business is to make the City a clearly more exiting and attractive place to live. This starts with entertainment and ends with education.
Will people who do not live or work in BPV spend their money in BPV? Meaning people that go to the stadium for a game, say from the County, will they save some of their money and spend it at BPV?
How many residents will actually move into BPV and how many businesses? How long will it take for these units to sell? Will said residents be new City residents or will it only relocate existing City residents?
Where are the number showing that Cordish needs the TIF!
Developers play this game everyday whereas governments do not have as much experience in this area. There is an asymmetrical balance of information in favor of the developer which puts the City at a disadvantage.
St. Louis should be skeptical and there should be definitive proof that TIF is needed and will benefit downtown. Subsidy of stadiums does not benefit downtown and if we spend more money we should see some persuasive proof.
I am not sure if TIF applies here but when the City issues tax abatement the SLPS must also abate the tax per Missouri Law. Does this apply to the TIF district as well?
I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five (people) that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.
Did he really?
Earnings Tax:
Well we need more property taxes first. If we keep issuing tax abatement then we will have the earnings tax for at least 20 years, depending on when abatement periods end and when they are no longer issued. Even then it is hard to say if the earnings tax will ever end. Individuals who are not paying property tax are paying earnings tax. In any event, we would need a lot more middle-high income residents owning property (and paying their tax). I read that the SLPS taxing district is collecting only 90 percent of their taxes thus they loose 15 million per year.
I think the best way to attract new residents and business is to make the City a clearly more exiting and attractive place to live. This starts with entertainment and ends with education.
- 11K
I read that the SLPS taxing district is collecting only 90 percent of their taxes thus they loose 15 million per year.
Isn't this the argument used by anti-BPV? Doesn't the property tax abatement and the income earning tax negate one another (at least it does for me). My property tax is ~$1,000 than it 'should' be - the 1% earning tax is much less than this $1,000 = I'm relatively happy with the city tax situation.
So I'm happy with how it stands, but what's even better is that the tax abatement is successfully luring people to the city (it's one component of this at least) and as tax abatements are phased out over the next 5-12years (I understand most are for a period of about that length), city revenue will climb dramatically. But first there must be a critical mass of residents on Wash Ave, FPSE, Tower Grove etc. so that eliminating the abatement doesn't do more harm than good.
Can I make a plea that we not discuss tax reform on this forum? This is a discussion that, while technically pertinent, is so broad and far removed that it keeps us from talking directly about St. Louis, its proposed projects, and their immediate fates, and spurs discussions of abstract issues that have wide reaching effects and don't specifically fit into the context of our city. It's one of those things that determines and governs the entire forum. Certain suppositions have to generally be in place for a forum like this: that St. Louis is in the United States, it is in a capitalist republic, that our officials are elected democratically, that the laws that we have are the law until they change, and that taxes will stay the way it is until it changes. These are our political contexts. Obviously, if these sorts of things changed, our forum would be a very different place, but until they do --and I don't see that they will-- discussing their change is a POLITICAL DISCUSSION and has to be separated from the rest of the forum some how. Can some moderator please step in on this? Can we at least insist that it be discussed in ONE thread? Certainly not in the Ballpark Village thread.
Right I am not arguing for elimination of tax abatement. The areas will have to reach critical mass before they can be removed. The question is who defines critical mass the developers or the city?
The two taxes do not negate each other. Abating the property tax creates a higher dependency on the earnings tax in the short term since revenue would normally be acquired from both. In the long term the hope is that more residents will be around when the abatements expire thus revenue is much greater than before.
When I cited the SLPS issue I am not arguing for or anti BPV. My purpose for the citation is that the law should be changed. The SLPS should not automatically have to abate taxes or issue any other subsidy simply because the City finds them necessary. The SLPS and the City are separate governments and should act with autonomy.
BTW, these political discussions are relevant to BPV and the City as a whole. These policies affect development and are not nationally mandated. Houston does not even have zoning. These are local issues.
The two taxes do not negate each other. Abating the property tax creates a higher dependency on the earnings tax in the short term since revenue would normally be acquired from both. In the long term the hope is that more residents will be around when the abatements expire thus revenue is much greater than before.
When I cited the SLPS issue I am not arguing for or anti BPV. My purpose for the citation is that the law should be changed. The SLPS should not automatically have to abate taxes or issue any other subsidy simply because the City finds them necessary. The SLPS and the City are separate governments and should act with autonomy.
BTW, these political discussions are relevant to BPV and the City as a whole. These policies affect development and are not nationally mandated. Houston does not even have zoning. These are local issues.
No, I wasn't talking about ending the discussion about TIFs in regard to BPV or any specific development. I think we cross the line when we discuss tax reform in general or the merits of taxation itself.
MattnSTL wrote:The editorial in the post a couple of weeks back that had a pic of the model said that it was to scale, but not necassarilly built to the final designs. So with that in mind, the building designs could very easily change. We all know how often they do.
You don't want to have to be building too many $100,000+ models though...you'd think they would have been fairly certain that that was close to the final design before they shelled out that kind of cash.
- 86
I wonder if the Cardinals owners are waiting until after the baseball season is over to release the final ballpark village design. They are probably spending their time enjoying the post season action and will not iron out the last details until after we win the World Series! [-o<
I've had the same thought in my head for a while. How great would it be to announce BPV in the wake of a World Series win. Or even at the cerimony itself!!!
There is a good article in today's WSJ about cities constructing stadiums with neighborhoods to match. The BPV was mentioned in the article and was listed in a table of projects on the table nationwide.
Not so surprisingly, TBD was not mentioned although I'm not sure it qualifies since EDJ Dome is about 10 years old or maybe the project may never go through.
Not so surprisingly, TBD was not mentioned although I'm not sure it qualifies since EDJ Dome is about 10 years old or maybe the project may never go through.
crbswiss wrote:I've had the same thought in my head for a while. How great would it be to announce BPV in the wake of a World Series win. Or even at the cerimony itself!!!
Um, yes that would be nice. Frankly, I would be happy if either of those two events occured.
- 3,762
Wow. Frank Gehry as the architect. That's news. This is definately not what I was expecting. I'm not sure if I prefer it or not. It doesn't look like it would have as many units?
Wow, this is insane:
Look at the picture, it looks like they're planning on moving the whole building?!
I also like this:
Perhaps the most ambitious aspect of the plan calls for Kiel Opera House, shuttered since 1991, to be unhitched from its Market Street foundation, towed one-half mile east and re-anchored across the street from Mike Shannon's Steaks and Seafood.
Look at the picture, it looks like they're planning on moving the whole building?!
I also like this:
The Repertory Theatre of St. Louis and Opera Theatre of Saint Louis, both of which will move downtown from Webster University;
- 11K
NO F'ING WAY! Seriously - I guess this is real, but what the H*LL. I mean, I love it . . . but ST LOUIS can't really do something like this right?
OMG's
1. Cultural attractions downtown
2. Exposing new Busch for the bad reinterpretation that it is
3. Remaining demand for residential/retail/office - MW Tower? ++
4. 2009?
5. Moving Kiel?!?!?!?!?
(caveat - I will be depressed for a year if this is an elaborate trick)
I like this project, but I am already having misgivings about its location and prefer some of what it originally was supposed to be. More than anything, I want to see a grocery store, lots of condos with views into the building, office space and restaurants. Also, the Bowling Hall of Fame is at the bottom of my list. However, I would take an opera house and Webster's repertory any day over ESPN Zone. Can't we somehow combine these two visions? After all, this is supposed to be for the ballpark.
- 622
That was the dumbest thing I have ever read. Someone just confirm it's a joke.
I like the look of the ultra modern "Village" contrasting next to the retro stadium.