Meeting tonight!!! on tax stabilization giveaways (Providence: 2013, city hall, neighborhoods)

[Hollytree]

Meeting tonight (January 7th) at Providence City Hall at 6pm.

GoLocalProv | Bishop: 38 Stabilizations - Neverending Prov Tax Giveways are 38 Studios Redux

[ormari]

Hollytree, did you go?

[Hollytree]

Do not want to be personally identified…

Here's a report of what happened… leaders fairly clueless…. couldn't find anything on this in the mainstream media.

STEP fights corporate welfare at City Hall with a carnival atmosphere

[ormari]

Here's a pitch from one of the organizers, though I wouldn't call the atrocious golocalprov mainstream:

GoLocalProv | Bishop: 38 Stabilizations - Neverending Prov Tax Giveways are 38 Studios Redux

[ormari]

This story opens up some questions about the City's Tax Stabilization Agreement process. From the RI Future post about this:

Originally Posted by RI Future

On December 1 of last year the City Council Committee on Finance considered four ordinances that would extend the existing tax stabilization agreements for Monohassett Mill LLC, Pearl Street Properties LLC and Pearl Street LLC, 60 Valley Street LLC and 166 Valley Street LLC on behalf of the Rising Sun Mills Project, and 100 Fountain Street.

There are seven different corporations begging the city for extensions of Tax Stabilization Agreements. Let's look at one of them:

The RI Secretary of State's business filings database shows that Monohassett Mill LLC was dissolved as a corporation in 2013. How is a dissolved corporation eligible to receive a tax exemption? If they've been dissolved as a corporation, they are likely not to be paying any corporate income tax to the state either. If they are still operating as a business, then the Secretary of State should go knocking on their door.

The city should throw out their request for an extension of the tax stabilization agreement for that reason alone.

[el_greco]

But you'd be crazy to suggest that RI has a corruption problem! I'm sure someone will be able to chime in any minute now as to why this isn't a problem

[ormari]

Originally Posted by el_greco

But you'd be crazy to suggest that RI has a corruption problem! I'm sure someone will be able to chime in any minute now as to why this isn't a problem

It would be just super if you had a bit of evidence to back this up. Without it, it's just another gratuitous, irresponsible, and counterproductive bit of rabble-rousing. Are you suggesting that the city council took bribes to extend these agreements? That's a pretty serious charge to make. It would be foolish to make up stuff like that without evidence. So let's hear your evidence.

The owners of the properties in question have now applied for extensions to these tax stabilizations at an open City Council Finance Committee meeting. While I didn't go to the meeting, and frankly don't even know if the Finance committee voted on it, clearly some citizens are making their voices heard that they are against extending the preferential tax treatment these developers received. That seems like the typical democratic process anywhere in this country.

That's not to say there's not a problem evident here: it's entirely possible that the City Council did not do their due diligence, such as check on the status of the corporation with the Secretary of State. Vetting the applicant seems like it should be a basic part of the process of granting a TSA, but whether it is or not is a different matter. That's evidence of an inadequate system of checks and balances, but not necessarily corruption. There is a difference.

The Tax Stabilization Agreements originally granted to these projects (except 100 Fountain, which I believe is new) encouraged developers to put money into what were financially risky projects which likely would not have happened without them. For the most part, these projects look like they've been successful, have helped save some historic buildings while improving neighborhoods, and helped drive the Providence economy.

I believe the property owners have had enough favorable tax treatment by this time to fledge their wings; ending the tax advantages would both ease the burden on the Providence tax payer as well as potentially make funds available for similar developments in the future.