Grand Avenue Roll Call: Who's Missing?
By Walter Moore, Chief Economist and Legal Analyst, L.A. Policy Institute.The L.A. Times today endorses the Grand Avenue subsidies, noting the various groups that support it. See if you notice which group is missing from the list:
"Downtown enthusiasts pine for a catalyst to ignite more development near Disney Hall. Community groups like the park that the private developer agreed to underwrite. Labor groups like the 'living wage' conditions imposed on the development. Housing advocates like the affordable units that will be offered alongside the high-end condos. And neighboring editorial writers like the prospect of some decent retail next door. (How about a bookstore and a decent smoothie joint?)"
Did you spot the obscure special interest group omitted from the roll call of supporters? It rhymes with "paxtayers."
As for the subsidies the developers will receive, the Times puts the figure at $66 million -- versus $120 million according to the Daily News. The Times does not explain how it arrived at the $66 milliion figure.
The Times then asserts that $66 million "is a modest sum in the context of the development's overall cost, and it pales in comparison with the likely benefits for the city and county (including rent, public improvements and other tax revenue)."
There are three things wrong with that assertion:
First, $66 million is $66 million. It's not a "modest sum" to us taxpayers. It takes L.A.'s taxpayers a great deal of time and hard work to generate that kind of money.
Second, why do developers of a $2 billion project need $66 million of OUR money? Sixty-six million dollars is 3.3% of $2 billion. Are we really supposed to believe that the profit margin on this project is so slim that the developers will make a profit if, and only if, we give them 3.3% subsidy? Hello?! The developers could easily earn over 4% per year just by opening a garden-variety savings account!
Third, where is our money-back guarantee for "the likely benefits . . . including . . . tax revenue," and since when is that a benefit?
The Times knows exactly what's going to happen with this project, because it is the same thing that happens with every massive subsidy program: the costs to you, the taxpayer, will skyrocket. As the Times puts it, "it will be important for public officials to avoid being trapped in a 'too large to fail' mentality to justify further tax breaks or subsidies down the road."
City Hall, however, has already set the trap, and you, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, are the prey. City Council will authorize greater and greater expenditures of your, as they always do. No one has ever said, of a public project, "It was completed ahead of schedule and under budget."
Posted by Walter Moore @ 2/12/2007 08:13:00 AM
19 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'd like to buy and redo a building in that area. How do I get some of this subsidy money? I'm serious. Someone point me in the right direction. I want to buy a rundown building, restore it totally green then have nonprofits rent out the space for uses that will help improve the surrounding community. I just need a place in the building for my nonprofit group.
BRAVO.
9:20 I just need the building, green, yellow, or purple.
great math this time. well done.
MEMO TO THE "LA ANTONIA NEEDS A HANDOUT TIMES"
Journalist O'Shea, what shadow is darkening the mood of the Editorial room at the "OLD GREY HAG ON SPRING STREET" ?? "A BROAD SHADOW" ??. Just when we on the "COMMON SENCE, SOLVE IT YOUR SELF" side of the political landscape, thought that reasoned opinion had return. You come out with a editorial that condone the continuing "FIX" to the "CORPORATE WELFARE JUNKIES". Just maybe you were thinking ahead to a time when a certain "BILLIONAIRE DEVELOPER" would be signing your pay checks. But according to the "WALL STREET JOURNAL", "BIG TRIBUNE" is more likely to hold on to your fish wrap, thus the chance to read the daily "L.A. ACCORDING TO ELI" will just be a bad dream. At 125 years old, thoughts are not as coherant as those younger years. It wasn't long ago before "OTIS", that the "TIMES" was a pro-business voice. Recently we saw hope that those days were returning, taking into consideration your stance on the "LIVING WAGE". We even thought about changing your moniker to the "SPRING STREET JOURNAL". After all you always wanted to be the "NEW YORK TIMES OF THE WEST", Why not be the "WALL STREET JOURNAL OF THE WEST" ???. But once you sell your "JOURNALISTIC SOUL" to be part of the political elite, then you are just another "FISH WRAP". In closing, HILLER and O'SHEA at 125 years of age, you are in need of some major journalistic face lifts, maybe you thinking about asking "JUAN AND JUANITA TAXPAYERS" to help with the cost ??
FREEDOM AND FREE ENTERPRISE
"RED SPOT OF REASON IN CD 14"
Tapayers are missing from the L.A. Times' list? Am I missing something here?
Downtown enthusiasts consist of taxpayers.
Community groups consist of taxpayers.
Labor groups consist of taxpayers.
Housing advocates consist of taxpayers.
Editorial writers are taxpayers.
A wise man recently wrote on the blog that we should question propagandists who use loaded terms like "NIMBY's" "billionare philanthropists" and "billionare developers." Can we add "taxpayers" to that list please? Since every since person in this City pays taxes, can we just say "people."
"People" can reasonably disagree with the Grand Avenue project and its 20-year tax rebates ("subsidies"). Since all of them pay taxes, none of them is more important than the other, and none of them has a more valid opinion than the other.
By all means, Walter, fight the Grand Avenue project, but don't claim the mantle of "taxpayers." It's a worthless term.
You WISH "taxpayer" was a meaningless term, so you could pretend L.A.'s taxpayers aren't getting raped to provide subsidies to special interest groups.
Nice try, but, in the words of Judge Judy, "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Walter, I really don't get it. You said "taxpayers" were missing from the Times list, which contained a list of several groups of people who all pay taxes. And guess what, those taxpayers are OK with their tax money going to this project. So it might be reasonable to say "taxpayers" support the Grand Avenue project, right? Or at least that they like to be "raped?"
This really brilliant guy was just saying on this very blog that we shouldn't use loaded terms for "propaganda" purposes. You know, like "NIMBY's," "billionarie developers" and the like. I suggested we add "taxpayers" and now add "special interest groups." What is a "special interest group" anyway? Don't all people (taxpayers) have special interests (desires)? Like, do parents who want their kids to have a good education "special interests" for the school district?
Maybe the right term is "people," Walter. We're all simply "people" with different desires, different opinions, different opinions of Grand Avenue. Wouldn't it be simpler to say that all of us "taxpayers" and "special interests groups" have more in common than you lead us to believe? Sure, some have better access to the politicos, but we're all just "people." Stop using other meaningless terms.
Okay - how about if clarify it to say the list does not include the "99.9999998% of city taxpayers WHO are not the particular unions, developers, politicians, special interest groups and poverty pimps that will benefit from this boondoggle."
Other poverty pimps not in on this project are jealous.
Where is Joel Wachs when we need him?
When government "invests" our money to generate more tax revenue, we're told that trash fees must be increased to pay for basic services.
When will taxpayers organize and fight back against this monster?
To: 11:21 -- You're right -- you ARE missing something.
11:21 is either:
A. Missing a brain.
B. Missing a head.
C. Missing the train.
D. Missing in action.
Vote now!
4:21
answer is E. all of the above
11:21 wouldn't know how to pour water out of a boot with instructions printed on the heel!
Hey Mayor Sam, you say 99.9999998% of L.A. City residents are opposed to the Grand Avenue project. The estimated population of L.A. City is 4,097,340. 4,097,340-99.9999998%=4,097,339.
So only 1 person in all of L.A. City supports this project? Do you have some figures? PROVE IT (See, I'm just like Walter, I challenge people to prove things to me rather than doing the research myself)
Seems like more than 1 person supports this project besides the entire L.A. Times editorial board, the entire Downtown News editorial board, the CRA commissioners, and all those "poverty pimps" out there.
It looks like you got your figures wrong, Mayor Sam. But, if someone can prove more than 1 person supports Grand Avenue, I'm sure Walter will delete the whole thread and give credit to the anonymous blogger who helped with a "draft" of the post. This blog has no credibility.
That "subsidy" really is lowered or deferred taxes for businesses that otherwise won't exist if the area isn't developed to begin with---btw, the area has sit unused or underutilized since the 1960s. To think otherwise means that one can say that the taxpayers of LA are making out like gangbusters because so few subsidies have been applied to all the development and properties in Watts, East LA or Harbor City.
The far bigger subsidy, if you will, are the millions of dollars that have flowed out of downtown to other communities, some far, far away from LA, over the past several decades. Moreover, the city of LA already has a reputation for being non-competitive because it has some of the highest level of taxes and fees among all the cities of LA County.
A "TIME" Magazine cover that actually symapthizes with taxpayers? Must be from the 50's (when TIME was actually a great magazine)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home