The Creation Museum - the White Elephant (or White Dinosaur) in the Metro (Cincinnati: 2015, hotels)

[mike1003]

How about Upton Sinclair's The Jungle or even soylent green

Now those woul be more fun than hob-nobing with religious zelots at the Creation Museum or the Ark

[censusdata]

They should build a replica of the Tower of Babel in downtown Covington and then demolish it. That would be cool

Seriously I'm not thrilled with either the creation museum or ark park being in my state as I was brought up in an uber strict conservative Christian household and know just how destructive fundamentalism can be. I'm actually shunned by family members because I left their self important cult. I was brought up to believe in the literal Genesis nonsense. In 2nd grade my mom made me say dinosaurs didn't die 65 million years ago for homework questions. I've actually heard family members say that scientist want to disprove the Bible so they can practice homosexuality on each other. I am not kidding. Most religious states have the highest divorce rates and porn viewership. So much for being pro family.

That said they are private enterprises and are for profit, so they can't be shut down. My understanding from the news is that the ark park does not require employees to sign a paper saying they believe in literal Genesis so it could get public bonds. The creation museum requires such a signed document and got no public funds

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by censusdata

They should build a replica of the Tower of Babel in downtown Covington and then demolish it. That would be cool

Seriously I'm not thrilled with either the creation museum or ark park being in my state as I was brought up in an uber strict conservative Christian household and know just how destructive fundamentalism can be. I'm actually shunned by family members because I left their self important cult. I was brought up to believe in the literal Genesis nonsense. In 2nd grade my mom made me say dinosaurs didn't die 65 million years ago for homework questions. I've actually heard family members say that scientist want to disprove the Bible so they can practice homosexuality on each other. I am not kidding. Most religious states have the highest divorce rates and porn viewership. So much for being pro family.

That said they are private enterprises and are for profit, so they can't be shut down. My understanding from the news is that the ark park does not require employees to sign a paper saying they believe in literal Genesis so it could get public bonds. The creation museum requires such a signed document and got no public funds

Seriously I have no problem with either the creation museum nor the ark. As religious enterprises I just want them to be denied public funding. I have only a vague idea where the museum is located. I decided early on to ignore it which works quite well. I just wish those non believers who live close to it could escape as easily as I have.

I am a believer in the right of religious expression as a critical rung of our society. I also believe this includes the right to ignore any religious fundamentalism I so chose.

As I watch this thread continue to expand I am struck by the inconsistencies of thought presented here. But this is exactly what I expect whenever a religious tone is introduced into a public forum.

[Wilson513]

The problem that plagues this thread is the mistaken notion that TIF, CRA or Tax abatement financing is "public support."

If it is, then why should there be public support for a Wendy's or a gas station or a maker of sex toys? They have all received TIF, CRA or abatements. Why would public money be given for those?

No, TIF, CRA and abatements are to benefit the taxpayers by encouraging construction and location of a business that would not occur BUT FOR the TIF, CRA, or abatement. That "but for" is the sine qua non of a TIF, CRA, or abatement, not whether the Muslims or the Christians deserve public support. The project deveoper is supposed to represent to the public authority that if they don't get the TIF, CRA or abatement they will go somewhere else. If they don't build elsewhere then the decision not to grant the abatement is correct.

Recall the GE CRA for the Banks. The City of Cincinnati wanted to get their hands on the $2000 per employee, per year of City Income Tax if GE came to the Banks. It was not because GE is such a deserving recipient of public money. Put your thinking caps on folks and wake up and smell the coffee. This isn't public funding, its the opposite.

[Sarah Perry]

I understand tax incentives.

When a governmental authority doesn't tax an enterprise that would normally be taxed, that has the same end result as putting money back in the pockets of the business. Yes, it can be important in terms of making the critical difference in whether a project is profitable enough to go forward. But it's definitely preferential treatment, and since the money to operate government has to come from somewhere else, tax incentives have a cost to other taxpayers. Whether they have an eventual NET cost is a gamble.

But interestingly, the developers DID say they would go ahead with the project regardless--it might just take more time to get it off the ground. So that's definitely a win for everyone concerned. Good thing there was some basis for denying their application in this instance. Taxpayers will get all the benefits and have to bear none of the costs of the incentive.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by Sarah Perry

I understand tax incentives.

When a governmental authority doesn't tax an enterprise that would normally be taxed, that has the same end result as putting money back in the pockets of the business. . .

The bold type above is our point of departure. TIFs, CRAs and abatements with public funds are not supposed to be granted unless the enterprise would not otherwise subject itself to the taxing authority. So, when a TIF is applied for, the applicant has to state, "this project will not be built in this location unless the TIF is granted" or equivalent.

If in actual practice, someone applies to the government for an abatement and when it is denied they build their project anyway, because they were just bluffing, I can't help that.

We have had a lot of lost projects because our local governments would not grant incentives. They made a decision that the incentives sought exceeded the likely benefit of the project. That is the criteria. These are not "deserving" applicants. Nor are they "undeserving" applicants. Either the abatement is a benefit to the taxing authority or it isn't.

So, the enterprise receiving the TIF would not meet your criteria of "normally be taxed" if the law is properly applied. I don't want the government deciding who is a "deserving" applicant and giving money to them. I just want the government to make a value judgement based on dollars and cents and grant or deny on that basis.

It is so basic, I fail to see why folks don't get it.

[cgs2000]

It seems a shame that state and local governments are set up to outbid each other to gain some enterprise which wants a subsidy/abatement/whatever. The prospective benefit to the granting authority can always be supported by some university or consultant research which usually doesn't show after the fact. The whole process seems like ransoming a hostage, often a phantom who does not exist. 'If you don't give $$$ we will move our ball club or assembly line or casino to where they love us!'

[h Steve]

Now Answers in Genesis is suing over the tax issue.
Religious group threatens to sue over tax credit denial for Noah

[Sarah Perry]

Originally Posted by h Steve

Now Answers in Genesis is suing over the tax issue.
Religious group threatens to sue over tax credit denial for Noah

That article leaves me with the impression that Answers in Genesis wants to be a private corporation when it comes to tax incentives and a church when it comes to hiring. Last time I checked, churches don't charge admission to the public to attend, for one thing, not do they seek to return a monetary profit to their owners/members or shareholders. But the federal courts never cease to surprise, so who knows? Who ever expected that a corporation would be a person? So why not a church?

[Wilson513]

This development is exactly consistent with what I have been saying. And, the denial of the tax incentive based on unpopular religious dogma of the Ark promoters underlines the pervasive discrimination against fundamentalist Christians in this country. And, in Kentucky of all places.

I wish this lawsuit would be filed, but Christians are not litigious. Too bad. Kentucky deserves a whipping for this.