Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would love to see them stay offering tax breaks on companies to build low income housing in Downtown.
That really would not work, for a number of reasons. Land is too expensive as it is, the market can demand way more positive cashflow than any tax break could make up for downtown. Also, the city cannot offer the tax break in perpetuity because they would just be taking more land off tax rolls permanently. This would put a long term strain on police, fire and the school systems. You can't really allow people to live in housing with children attending schools where no property tax whatsoever is collected. There are plenty of affordable places to live within a very short drive or bus ride of downtown.
You also cant build low income housing in the CBD for the same reason you can't have single family homes with large yards there, you can't have single story homes with two car garages, and you can't offer 3-4 bedroom apartments for $700 a month. People make a lifestyle choice to live in/very near the CBD and that means they have to make tradeoffs as well.
That really would not work, for a number of reasons. Land is too expensive as it is, the market can demand way more positive cashflow than any tax break could make up for downtown. Also, the city cannot offer the tax break in perpetuity because they would just be taking more land off tax rolls permanently. This would put a long term strain on police, fire and the school systems. You can't really allow people to live in housing with children attending schools where no property tax whatsoever is collected. There are plenty of affordable places to live within a very short drive or bus ride of downtown.
You also cant build low income housing in the CBD for the same reason you can't have single family homes with large yards there, you can't have single story homes with two car garages, and you can't offer 3-4 bedroom apartments for $700 a month. People make a lifestyle choice to live in/very near the CBD and that means they have to make tradeoffs as well.
A lot of cities have ordinances that require new developments to have a certain percentage of below market housing, but Columbia just doesn't have enough built-in demand to justify that. Maybe some day.
That really would not work, for a number of reasons. Land is too expensive as it is, the market can demand way more positive cashflow than any tax break could make up for downtown. Also, the city cannot offer the tax break in perpetuity because they would just be taking more land off tax rolls permanently. This would put a long term strain on police, fire and the school systems. You can't really allow people to live in housing with children attending schools where no property tax whatsoever is collected. There are plenty of affordable places to live within a very short drive or bus ride of downtown.
You also cant build low income housing in the CBD for the same reason you can't have single family homes with large yards there, you can't have single story homes with two car garages, and you can't offer 3-4 bedroom apartments for $700 a month. People make a lifestyle choice to live in/very near the CBD and that means they have to make tradeoffs as well.
All I heard was a bunch of excuses and sterotypes.
So they are offering tax breaks for just 3 years? Is that going to be enough to induce anyone to do anything ? I am usually leery of political gimmicks to "spur" development and this smells like a political payback ...the article notes that it could encouraged "stalled" projects to move forward and goes on to name Klein and Bull Street one of which is very politically connected . Gimmicks shouldn't be a substitute for solid planning and economic development strategies that yield steady long.term growth
. Case in point ...Richland Cty acknowledged that this incentive would make the county mirror the apparently lower Lexington Cty tax rate ...Really ? Seems like the rate is the problem if that is the case ..and some long term reduction may be in order ..It also explains why the city of Columbia cannot even annex a gas station...if the city's commercial tax burden ...in unreasonably high ontop of a high county tax rate ....just saying
Last edited by Woodlands; 07-29-2019 at 08:34 PM..
So they are offering tax breaks for just 3 years? Is that going to be enough to induce anyone to do anything ? I am usually leery of political gimmicks to "spur" development and this smells like a political payback ...the article notes that it could encouraged "stalled" projects to move forward and goes on to name Klein and Bull Street one of which is very politically connected . Gimmicks shouldn't be a substitute for solid planning and economic development strategies that yield steady long.term growth
. Case in point ...Richland Cty acknowledged that this incentive would make the county mirror the apparently lower Lexington Cty tax rate ...Really ? Seems like the rate is the problem if that is the case ..and some long term reduction may be in order ..It also explains why the city of Columbia cannot even annex a gas station...if the city's commercial tax burden ...in unreasonably high ontop of a high county tax rate ....just saying
I would be concerned if Columbia's city tax rate was equal to that of Lexington. I understand the idea of parity, but services alone should justify higher rates. They seem to have a coherent strategy- flip as much nontaxable or unproductive land to taxable land- but they need to spur it. You may be right about this being a handout to big developers, but the last one seemed to work in Columbia's favor either way.
All I heard was a bunch of excuses and sterotypes.
I am honestly not trying to make excuses or make statements based on stereotypes. I am simply stating the reality of a situation. There is no tool the city of Columbia can use at the moment to promote low income housing downtown. I will try to further explain -
Tax credits sold to financial institutions by low income developers is the primary funding source for low income developments. These credits are known asLIHTC credits and they are basically worthless now that the corporate tax rate was reduced. The other driver of low income housing development is Community Development Block Grants. These grants are some of the most competitive funding opportunities in the United States. HUD is also reducing many of these funds under the current administration.
Many larger cities and/or counties who collect large sums from very expensive housing (NYC, SF, LA, BOS) can partially use some of these funds to provide incentives for developers to include a number of units at an income restricted price in exchange for a reduction in property tax. This is done to ensure there is a workforce in proximity to otherwise very expense areas, and/or redeveloping areas.
The City of Columbia and Richland County do not have the funds through property tax or sales tax to provide that kind of incentive, especially when affordable housing exists within minutes of most major employers. The goal of the city/county is to bring more land on to the tax rolls, not to provide low cost housing in the most desirable areas of town. It is a harsh reality, but it is reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
