The July 29 Az Republic has an article by Phoenix City Manager Frank Fairbanks that extols the virtues of the CityNorth subsidy.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/07/29/20090729wedlets292.html
On July 31, reporter Bob Robb writes,"A sales-tax rebate to reimburse a private developer for a parking garage that will serve primarily the private patrons of the developer's private tenants is a clear violation of the constitutional provision."
"This state Supreme Court actually has an easy choice. It can affirm that, as the Court of Appeals unanimously did. Or it can pretend that the state Constitution says something it doesn't say."
http://localsearch.azcentral.com/sp?catId=&aff=1100&searchkeyword=&searchca
The case will be heard in Phoenix on Sept. 30 @ 9:30AM.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will do the right thing and uphold the Az Constitution, agreeing with The Goldwater Institute that brought the case to this point.
17 comments:
A toast to the Goldwater Institute for upholding the Constitution of the State of Arizona.
A win for the GWI will be a win for us.
Citizens who smelled something unsavory about Vestar and other developers demanding a chunk of our taxes JUST FOR COMING HERE were right. Back East we called it extortion.
Given Ms. Pastryk's background you would think she would be aware of the following Webster information:
EXTORT, vt. to get (money,etc.)from someone by force or threats.
Somewhere along the way I must have missed the "force or threats" part. Ms. Pastryk's confusion continues when it comes to reality. Need I remind you of her statement regarding political signs on the Mayor's property.
The case before the Supreme Court is about Phoenix and CityNorth and their agreement, not every revenue sharing agreement that is in effect within the state. High courts generally keep their rulings relative narrow in cases they review. Whether this one does remains to be seen.
I obviously (as is probably true of99.9% of us here) don't know all of the facts in the case but it appears to me that the City of Phoenix is receiving nothing from the parking garage revenues. THAT I believe is the rub in this case.
It is my belief that as long as a municipality receives a reasonable return for it's sales tax sharing then the agreement will be considered acceptable.
But however it turns out, MAYBE just MAYBE this will allow those who just can't seem to get over OVM to move on and start looking forward. We have far more important things to consider in our great community.
Thinker,
In your mind, what would be a "reasonable return" for sharing the sales tax revenues?
I assume you're thinking job creation. Anything else? And is it a reasonable return when all the jobs pay minimum wage and many are part-time with no benefits?
As for extortion, no, Vestar didn't engage in the kind of extortion that comes to mind when someone says that word, but they did "threaten" the voters with their claims that if anyone other than Vestar built the mall, that we would get an "Anywhere USA" mall.
One of their flyers said...Opponents of the mall must want an Anywhere USA mall, because that's what you'll get if Vestar is not the developer.
And what did Vestar give us?
Think about the multitude of full-color mailers we received in the mail every day for weeks, maybe months. Think about the DVD they also mailed out. Think about the amount of money they spent to create and mail all of these promotional materials.
No, it wasn't "force" as in holding a gun to our heads, but it was MANIPULATION which is what I call, "force through creativity."
I'll use a manipulative parent as an example. The 18-year old son wants to join the military. His mother doesn't want him to do it. She's afraid she'll never see him again. So the father says to the son, "This is killing your mother." The father is not forcing the son not to join the military, but he is manipulating him not to join through his use of emotional words.
That's what Vestar did. They used emotional words and emotional pictures to manipulate voters into giving them what THEY wanted.
Kathy isn't that far off the mark.
VC....If all you can point to is a mailing campaign to suggest "force or threats", then your argument doesn't hold much water. The real winning campaign was the fact that you could shop for many of the things you buy closer to home, saving you time and money. I submit to you that the proposition would have won even without the fancy mailers and DVD's.
As for a return, fiscally Oro Valley, Pima County and Amphi School District are and will continue be a tremendous winners in the OVM deal. I wasn't even considering job creation but there are more folks working now than would be if we had no mall. Most retail shops/stores/restaurants are heavy on part-time workers....even in those 'upscale' places up north in "Snobsdale".
I repeat:
But however it turns out, MAYBE just MAYBE this will allow those who just can't seem to get over OVM to move on and start looking forward. We have far more important things to consider in our great community.
OV Objective Thinker,I lived in New Jersey for 25 years,& you're gonna tell me what's extortion? Some of it is subtle like: Da Don will not be happy wit yous if ya squeal.
Vestar was more direct. Council members were informed that the TOV would be sued if they opened their mouths about what we could expect at the Marketplace. So council lamented, "Our hands are tied" and the "upscale" anchor store remained a mystery. Pitifully,we might have defeated the EDA's back then through the ensuing referendum had mouths not been taped. The relevant question remains,will Vestar ever collect their ill-gotten gain? Maybe not if the GWI defeats EDA's. -- now that's a cheery thought. Hey, while you're at the dictionary, OT, look up "relevant" and while you're there,"Objective." Thank you. ;)
Thinker, yes this case is specific to Phoenix and CityNorth. Depending on how it is ruled, it could possibly be applied to our situation in Ov.
There are three clauses of the Gift Law that are being presented in this case, not just the Gift clause.
The Special Law Clause in a nutshell says that a government entity can pass general laws that will create a favorable tax environment, but it may ot sinle out one business & give it special tax breaks.
Anywhoo I am sure if you are interested you can check out the G I website.
I find it interesting that a lot of the business people in OV did not speak out against this EDA when it passed.
Bottom line to me is Vestar was lying to us, yup they lied, sorry I am not more PC. So far there is nothing at all special about the mall!
What do you think is special about it?
Recall somebody mentioning that men could go buy a shirt and tie there instead of going to Tucson mall.
Not true at all.
I wish it were true so I could shop close to home and help my town with the tax $.
Only plus is a few more places to eat and that is the only plus.
And the heat must be getting to you if you seriously think that the people of OV would have voted for this EDA knowing what we know now.
"Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever...make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation." THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION AND IS DEEMED TO BE ABSOLUTE; it is commonly referred to as the 'gift clause'.
MY THREE CENTS:
As I understand it (no legal authority am I), 'financial assistance' can be granted by the above 'political subdivisions' IF and only IF a like amount in CONCRETE return back to the P.S. is effected by the receiver of such 'assistance'. A concrete return most probably cannot be generally defined as jobs or the argument that 'well, we ARE increasing your sales tax revenue by giving you a portion at least', or, in the case of City North in Phoenix, the argument that said recipient was to provide space for a 'park and ride' and 'allow for the city to have use of the 4500 parking spaces that had to be included in the project anyway (doesn't sound like $97,000,000 worth of concrete goodies for Phoenix to me).
And, while locally, Vestar has touted it's rehabilitation of the washed out wash as a plus for the community and a pat on the back for them, remember, this riparian rehab project was originally included in the PAD agreement for the development of Rancho Vistoso between Vistoso Partners and the Town. How Vistoso Partners and Vestar scrambled this have-to in their dealings is moot relative to the Community.
As to whether or not the legal case pending might be strictly a 'Phoenix' issue, I believe, is a gross oversimplification. This is a case where a law(s) has been in place within a State Constitution since 1912, has been ignored or bandied about since that time, and will finally, it is hoped, come to a definitive head with a declaration by the State Supreme Court in it's final ruling. How it will then be applicable to other like or similar situations will THEN have to be determined probably on a case by case basis.
OVOT, this law was designed to assist in the keeping of and perpetuating FREE enterprise which you espouse strongly in your business 'presentations'; hopefully this case will help you (as well as the rest of us) understand it all in the grand scheme of things.
Kathy....Now you have me intrigued. Let me get this straight and PLEASE correct me if I am misunderstanding your comment.
You are accusing the entire Town Council of lying to the public when asked if they knew what stores were going into the Oro Valley Marketplace? I would also be interested in when you claim that they knew and how that information was transmitted to them. Frankly is sounds more like a 'conspiracy theory' at this point until you can come up with something more to substantiate your claim. And I think objectivity is "relevant" in this discussion.:-)
Ms Coyote....Wouldn't it be wonderful if we knew the future. I doubt Vestar would have built this mall if they knew the future. I doubt I would have invested as heavily in the stock market if I knew the future. And I know some will get hot under their collar but would we have elected Obama if we knew the future? I'd like to think not. ;-)
Zev...OV is already dollars ahead. So I suppose by your definition the gift clause does not apply to our EDA's. Is that correct?
Just as a point of interest, how can our Council and many others around the state justify making any donations to organizations such as a food bank, Project Graduation,GOVAC, MTCVB, TREO, etc.???
Kathy, Zev, Mscoyote, et al---- You'd have more success trying to talk sense to a javelina.
You are wasting your time on Cox!
Art....If you don't have anything intelligent to add go back into your cave and continue watching cartoons and leave those of us who want to carry on a decent conversation alone. Once again your comments are uninvited and ignorant.
How silly of me....to expect an intelligent remark from you. I sit corrected.
OVOT, I thought I made it clear in my comment that financial benefits in the form of tax dollars absolutely do not qualify as a 'concrete' benefit and therefor DO NOT SATISFY THE CRITERIA OF 'TIT FOR TAT'! The gift clause WOULD most probably still apply!
Zev...
Please make the following clear.
"A concrete return most probably cannot be generally defined as jobs or the argument that 'well, we ARE increasing your sales tax revenue by giving you a portion at least',"
I think your last comment is refering to the above and it (above) just doesn't make sense.
OT, by the use of word 'concrete, I am trying to convey the concept of something which is not speculative, that it actually has a known certifiable monetary value, that it is not, in a sense, abstract, and that it's value is a known equal to the amount which might be expended by the political subdivision. I think I know what you are trying to convey, but jobs and sales tax returns do not seem to meet those conditions. We'll see.
Somewhere I might have a copy of the terms and conditions whereby certain EDAs of certain types MIGHT be exercised; I'll try to find it.
Zev...Thanks. Now it makes much more sense. However I would opine that sales tax is not abstract unless the forecast are outlandish. Forecasted revenues must appear to be based on some measurable historical record. I completely agree that jobs alone do not create concrete.
I also agree that what ever decision the AZ court makes, every EDA will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis which translates into someone is going to have to file an action before it is judicially reviewed. In the case of Oro Valley (and I suspect many other EDA's) the fact that there is already 'concrete' reciprocity (money in the bank) it would be difficult to argue the gift clause prohibition.
Let's all get out and do a rain dance!!!!!
OVOT, the fact that there is "money in the bank" is not a 'reciprocity'; that is what was portioned away and held in trust by TOV pending the outcome of the 'gift clause' litigation and what this case is all about - NOT sharing sales tax dollars with a private entity, not trading OUR money for OUR money. Perhaps, simply put, one example of a scenario could be described as 'a municipality allows that certain impact fees be waived; in return, the developer agrees to give title from a portion of his/her land, equal in value to the fees waived, to the municipality to be used for a school'; this, as I understand it, could be a legitimate EDA. The Town gives something and the developer gives back something that the developer OWNS or can perform FOR the Town and is equal in value to the value received and is derived from proceeds out of his/her own 'pocket'. Obviously the amount allowed for by the municipality (EDA) would have to be within a reasonable sum that could be 'covered' by the developer (not a $23,000,000 or $97,000,000 sum) in reciprocity.
Again, I'm not of the legal authority but that's about how I understand it.
Well may the bobcat bite me. OVOT and I have agreed again:
I quote: "Just as a point of interest, how can our Council and many others around the state justify making any donations to organizations such as a food bank, Project Graduation,GOVAC, MTCVB, TREO, etc.???"
The Vestar extortion is BEHIND us, we all shoud see that our tax money stays in infrastructure, fire/police and other core governmental functions, not in helium breathing give aways.
Zev's quote from the AZ Constitution...
"Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever...make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation."
Prompted this excellent question from Thinker and Nombe...
"How can our Council and many others around the state justify making any donations to organizations such as a food bank, Project Graduation,GOVAC, MTCVB, TREO, etc.???"
My answer is this. They shouldn't be doing THAT either! I have argued against these "donations" on this site and so has Zev. I think Ms. Coyote did, too.
Also Thinker, if you believe the proposition would have passed even without all the flyers and the DVD, then why did Vestar spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on these things? They obviously felt that they NEEDED to do these things in order to win.
Post a Comment