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.
So I admit that I was only skimming the bill and related new articles prior, but this is my understanding from more in-depth reading:
The bill only creates the mile wide transit development corridor and outlines the procedures and restrictions governing the creation, maintenance, and expansion of the transit development district. These districts which are created by the RDA, are limited in size to 1 square mile, must be contiguous, and must include the train station and it's accompanying parking lots. There must be 2 public hearings prior to the creation or expansion of a district, and one public hearing every 3 years to review the financing.
The established districts must be accompanied by a fund. This fund must be spent on projects within the district from which it is collected. In this fund must be deposited local income incremental revenue from the state and property tax incremental revenue from the county. The bill doesn't come out and say it, but I believe that Property tax incremental funding is synonymous with TIF funding (tax incremental financing), which is typically used for financing urban development projects. When a district is created, the current income tax and property tax revenues are set as a baseline. Those baseline funds remain available for city services and other funding such as school, and will not be used toward development. The fund will only grow if the income and property tax revenue in the district increases. The RDA also has the option to put all of the incremental revenue or part of the revenue into the fund, and incremental revenue must be shared with any current TIF development agreements.
So, correct, the RDA could put up to 1.5-2 of Munsters 7.5 square mile area into 2 transit development districts (likely part of the southern one would be in Dyer). And correct, they could adjust the shape of the district to fit their needs. But it would not be in their best interests to go after developed land that is already a high property tax producer, as that will yield less incremental revenue than undeveloped land. Most of the area for the TDD would want to be undeveloped or underdeveloped land, otherwise there won't be any space to actually spend the money that they are collecting in the fund.
Therefore, the schools will not see any decrease in their current funding because of this measure. They could have limits to future funding increases because these two TDDs will not produce any further funding, but those will more than likely be offset by increases in tax revenue from the other 6+ square miles of Munster (the theory being that TOD's increase adjacent property values, natural increases in property values, taxes, and incomes, etc.) And if the whole thing fails, and these TDD's do not cause new development or increased property values, then they don't receive funding and no city funding is lost anyway.
That's not to say that it's fool proof, but the RDA has no reason to do something that would purposefully hurt an area. That would be counter intuitive.
So I admit that I was only skimming the bill and related new articles prior, but this is my understanding from more in-depth reading:
The bill only creates the mile wide transit development corridor and outlines the procedures and restrictions governing the creation, maintenance, and expansion of the transit development district. These districts which are created by the RDA, are limited in size to 1 square mile, must be contiguous, and must include the train station and it's accompanying parking lots. There must be 2 public hearings prior to the creation or expansion of a district, and one public hearing every 3 years to review the financing.
The established districts must be accompanied by a fund. This fund must be spent on projects within the district from which it is collected. In this fund must be deposited local income incremental revenue from the state and property tax incremental revenue from the county. The bill doesn't come out and say it, but I believe that Property tax incremental funding is synonymous with TIF funding (tax incremental financing), which is typically used for financing urban development projects. When a district is created, the current income tax and property tax revenues are set as a baseline. Those baseline funds remain available for city services and other funding such as school, and will not be used toward development. The fund will only grow if the income and property tax revenue in the district increases. The RDA also has the option to put all of the incremental revenue or part of the revenue into the fund, and incremental revenue must be shared with any current TIF development agreements.
So, correct, the RDA could put up to 1.5-2 of Munsters 7.5 square mile area into 2 transit development districts (likely part of the southern one would be in Dyer). And correct, they could adjust the shape of the district to fit their needs. But it would not be in their best interests to go after developed land that is already a high property tax producer, as that will yield less incremental revenue than undeveloped land. Most of the area for the TDD would want to be undeveloped or underdeveloped land, otherwise there won't be any space to actually spend the money that they are collecting in the fund.
Therefore, the schools will not see any decrease in their current funding because of this measure. They could have limits to future funding increases because these two TDDs will not produce any further funding, but those will more than likely be offset by increases in tax revenue from the other 6+ square miles of Munster (the theory being that TOD's increase adjacent property values, natural increases in property values, taxes, and incomes, etc.) And if the whole thing fails, and these TDD's do not cause new development or increased property values, then they don't receive funding and no city funding is lost anyway.
That's not to say that it's fool proof, but the RDA has no reason to do something that would purposefully hurt an area. That would be counter intuitive.
Couple of things to think about to fully understand the impact/risks:
1. What lift in all other property values across the town do you think will need to materialize in order offset the loss of revenues in the new transit TIF districts? 5%, 10%, 20%? What kind of value bump do you think is realistic after the train is extended? I'm thinking you are going to need to see a value bump (above general growth levels) in the range of 15-20% across the board on all properties to recoup the losses. Frankly, I have serious questions about that being realistic.
2. In Munster there is already a substantial TIF district which encompasses 587 properties (mostly commercial). Approximately $3.2 million dollars of local property tax revenue is subject to the TIF currently and therefor can be held up from the schools. Obviously some of the prior TIF projects were definitely needed and made sense. For example, the Munster Steel redevelopment into Centennial Village. What total % of land or taxable value do you think is appropriate to include in a TIF district before the total % included really starts to erode other services?
3. You state that the RDA would not tag high-value properties. If they are smart they will tag properties with the highest value psf of land in addition to those with potential for the most growth (vacant land). There really isn't much vacant land around Ridge/Manor so that isn't even an option at that station by in large.
4. With the train extended the land around the stations naturally becomes more valuable and therefore development becomes even more financially feasible. The notion that the land near the Munster/Dyer station wouldn't naturally develop is really selling that area short IMO. We are seeing new construction starts in the South part of Munster. What extra incentives are really needed? Why can't the single-family areas continue to expand? I think some incentives could most certainly be helpful for Ridge/Manor as that area is ripe for redevelopment but it isn't like you need $100's of millions of dollars to spur it. The RDA is estimating they will collect nearly a half-a-billion dollars in TIF revenue. Is that much money really needed? At least in Munster? Whatever money is collected will surely be spent regardless of need.
5. The RDA continues to state they want affordable housing. Perhaps that is why they need all the money? I mean new construction of affordable housing is no way financially feasible in Munster. The land costs too much and the current rents are too high. This makes sense in Gary, not Munster. Also, on a side note, promoting affordable housing in Munster is NOT a good idea even if you think it is a small amount and the community can handle it. Unfortunately now that I've lived here for a few years and met more and more people in the community, I have come to the conclusion that some people just won't stand for it. There will be flight. It only takes a few bad apples to ruin the pie in places like NWI.
Couple of things to think about to fully understand the impact/risks:
1. What lift in all other property values across the town do you think will need to materialize in order offset the loss of revenues in the new transit TIF districts? 5%, 10%, 20%? What kind of value bump do you think is realistic after the train is extended? I'm thinking you are going to need to see a value bump (above general growth levels) in the range of 15-20% across the board on all properties to recoup the losses. Frankly, I have serious questions about that being realistic.
2. In Munster there is already a substantial TIF district which encompasses 587 properties (mostly commercial). Approximately $3.2 million dollars of local property tax revenue is subject to the TIF currently and therefor can be held up from the schools. Obviously some of the prior TIF projects were definitely needed and made sense. For example, the Munster Steel redevelopment into Centennial Village. What total % of land or taxable value do you think is appropriate to include in a TIF district before the total % included really starts to erode other services?
3. You state that the RDA would not tag high-value properties. If they are smart they will tag properties with the highest value psf of land in addition to those with potential for the most growth (vacant land). There really isn't much vacant land around Ridge/Manor so that isn't even an option at that station by in large.
4. With the train extended the land around the stations naturally becomes more valuable and therefore development becomes even more financially feasible. The notion that the land near the Munster/Dyer station wouldn't naturally develop is really selling that area short IMO. We are seeing new construction starts in the South part of Munster. What extra incentives are really needed? Why can't the single-family areas continue to expand? I think some incentives could most certainly be helpful for Ridge/Manor as that area is ripe for redevelopment but it isn't like you need $100's of millions of dollars to spur it. The RDA is estimating they will collect nearly a half-a-billion dollars in TIF revenue. Is that much money really needed? At least in Munster? Whatever money is collected will surely be spent regardless of need.
5. The RDA continues to state they want affordable housing. Perhaps that is why they need all the money? I mean new construction of affordable housing is no way financially feasible in Munster. The land costs too much and the current rents are too high. This makes sense in Gary, not Munster. Also, on a side note, promoting affordable housing in Munster is NOT a good idea even if you think it is a small amount and the community can handle it. Unfortunately now that I've lived here for a few years and met more and more people in the community, I have come to the conclusion that some people just won't stand for it. There will be flight. It only takes a few bad apples to ruin the pie in places like NWI.
I know that Munster would do everything in their power to prevent affordable housing (whether by legal, illegal, or questionable means). But I always think honestly...if flight would occur in Munster, to where would folks go in NWI (that is just as desirable) where they feel flight would not happen as well? Munster is just as flight prone as many of the other desirable areas in the region and even less than some of them. Crown Point (as an example) is further "south and east" and is a flight destination for many folks from other areas but I would say is also far more prone to flight than Munster and is even experiencing some flight now from ross township into center township.
I know that Munster would do everything in their power to prevent affordable housing (whether by legal, illegal, or questionable means). But I always think honestly...if flight would occur in Munster, to where would folks go in NWI (that is just as desirable) where they feel flight would not happen as well? Munster is just as flight prone as many of the other desirable areas in the region and even less than some of them. Crown Point (as an example) is further "south and east" and is a flight destination for many folks from other areas but I would say is also far more prone to flight than Munster and is even experiencing some flight now from ross township into center township.
LOL on the bolded. With respect to flight, just remember that relatively well-off folks who work downtown (the type of folks the train extension is supposed to be attracting or keeping) can always choose one of the more uniformly affluent suburbs of IL. Saving money by living in NWI is great but if subsidized low-income starts rolling in and "juniors" education is looking jeopardized b/c school funds have been diverted to building some low-income housing and shiny new buildings around the train stations, forget about the savings - it may be time to move.
I'm not saying this WILL happen and certainly I feel if Munster Town Council was in charge of this it would be much less likely to happen, I just have serious concerns about how the proposed HB1144 funding mechanism has been set up to take money from the schools and that HB1144 gives the RDA (not Town Council) the control of the funds. Maybe we will get really, really lucky and they will have a top-notch consultant who somehow figures out how to develop around the train so that the rest of us see a 30% increase in our property values and we have an influx of young families which bolster the schools. Here is to fingers crossed on that!
My whole larger point about this train extension is that the value proposition it offers to a place like Munster is predicated on the fact that the schools need to remain strong. It is the combo of the strong schools and better train access that creates real value for Munster.
LOL on the bolded. With respect to flight, just remember that relatively well-off folks who work downtown (the type of folks the train extension is supposed to be attracting or keeping) can always choose one of the more uniformly affluent suburbs of IL. Saving money by living in NWI is great but if subsidized low-income starts rolling in and "juniors" education is looking jeopardized b/c school funds have been diverted to building some low-income housing and shiny new buildings around the train stations, forget about the savings - it may be time to move.
I'm not saying this WILL happen and certainly I feel if Munster Town Council was in charge of this it would be much less likely to happen, I just have serious concerns about how the proposed HB1144 funding mechanism has been set up to take money from the schools and that HB1144 gives the RDA (not Town Council) the control of the funds. Maybe we will get really, really lucky and they will have a top-notch consultant who somehow figures out how to develop around the train so that the rest of us see a 30% increase in our property values and we have an influx of young families which bolster the schools. Here is to fingers crossed on that!
My whole larger point about this train extension is that the value proposition it offers to a place like Munster is predicated on the fact that the schools need to remain strong. It is the combo of the strong schools and better train access that creates real value for Munster.
I understand what you are saying. However, despite the deep funding cuts, Munster is still THE stop rated school district in NWI and has been (objectively, so) for a long time. Yes, the schools need to remain strong for the area to remain desirable but sometimes when I hear folks acting like Munster has gone or is going so far downhill but then they act like some places like Crown Point (which is having flight issues of its own on the north side), St. John, and Valpo (which has low-income housing that people have blamed crime issues on despite much of the crime not occurring at the low-income apartment complex as well as the heroin issue in Porter County) are devoid of issues or immune to the issues such as school funding (in which all three of those districts in addition to Munster have had issues), it makes me think if people truly think that moving out that way would truly insulate them from problems. As far as the uniformly affluent Illinois suburbs, I do agree that issues here could prevent folks from moving here despite the cost savings. As far as folks moving back into Illinois, that is more unlikely once they see the savings they have here but it is possible and has occurred.
I guess some people I hear out there just don't make sense. Moving from Hammond to Munster for better schools and safer environment makes sense. Moving from Merrillville to Crown Point (Center Township) for better schools and safer environment make sense. But when I have heard someone say they are moving from Schererville or Dyer to St. John due to "less apartments" and better schools (because they see that LC has a St. John address as well as Kolling) it makes no sense...Do these folks not realize that if Dyer and Schererville were to go downhill, it would have a direct negative impact on St. John as well as they share a school district? It would be the same as how the decline in Merrillville has also affected the north side of Crown Point as they are in the Merrillville district as well. Same thing with folks that move from Munster to Dyer or Schererville because of those fears. If Munster were to go downhill, Schererville and Dyer would see huge negative effects from that as well. Some folks are blaming the crime issues in the Pine Island area on Merrillville despite the fact that subdivisions such as Fox Run are basically adjacent to Merrillville and not only are very safe but also desirable. People refuse to believe that some issues are home grown.
For what it's worth, the affordable housing considerations is not RDA's personal agenda; it's a nationwide movement. Even Illinois' most high end Chicago communities are seeing a big push from state and federal entities to provide more affordable housing - up to 10%. That includes Barrington, Naperville, La Grange, and so on. The theory being that people of lesser means and the communities that serve them are better off when such housing is spread across a metropolitan region rather than concentrated in large "ghettos" that property value sink holes that no one wants to live in. And I think is also differs on how affordable is defined. Typically, it varies from "low income" in that the income caps for living there are defined as a percentage of the median income of an area. Therefore, affordable housing in high income areas such as Munster, would have a higher income cap, be able to rent for higher, and thus attract a more stable level of occupant.
Overall it really depends on execution, and I haven't found much in specifics about what the state or federal requirements for this area would be. Duplicating Columbia Center in Hammond is certainly not going to do any community much good, but well planned affordable housing grouped with substantial market rate housing, and aimed at households making 40-50k a year could be workable and beneficial for attracting younger families and individuals who are just starting out.
I understand what you are saying. However, despite the deep funding cuts, Munster is still THE stop rated school district in NWI and has been (objectively, so) for a long time. Yes, the schools need to remain strong for the area to remain desirable but sometimes when I hear folks acting like Munster has gone or is going so far downhill but then they act like some places like Crown Point (which is having flight issues of its own on the north side), St. John, and Valpo (which has low-income housing that people have blamed crime issues on despite much of the crime not occurring at the low-income apartment complex as well as the heroin issue in Porter County) are devoid of issues or immune to the issues such as school funding (in which all three of those districts in addition to Munster have had issues), it makes me think if people truly think that moving out that way would truly insulate them from problems. As far as the uniformly affluent Illinois suburbs, I do agree that issues here could prevent folks from moving here despite the cost savings. As far as folks moving back into Illinois, that is more unlikely once they see the savings they have here but it is possible and has occurred.
I guess some people I hear out there just don't make sense. Moving from Hammond to Munster for better schools and safer environment makes sense. Moving from Merrillville to Crown Point (Center Township) for better schools and safer environment make sense. But when I have heard someone say they are moving from Schererville or Dyer to St. John due to "less apartments" and better schools (because they see that LC has a St. John address as well as Kolling) it makes no sense...Do these folks not realize that if Dyer and Schererville were to go downhill, it would have a direct negative impact on St. John as well as they share a school district? It would be the same as how the decline in Merrillville has also affected the north side of Crown Point as they are in the Merrillville district as well. Same thing with folks that move from Munster to Dyer or Schererville because of those fears. If Munster were to go downhill, Schererville and Dyer would see huge negative effects from that as well. Some folks are blaming the crime issues in the Pine Island area on Merrillville despite the fact that subdivisions such as Fox Run are basically adjacent to Merrillville and not only are very safe but also desirable. People refuse to believe that some issues are home grown.
I moved from North Plainfield (a block from Naperville) to St. John last summer. Trust me, anyone who moves from the SW suburbs of Chicago to NW Indiana in Munster, St. John or Crown Point are NOT moving back to Illinois. We were in a top rated school district in Illinois (rated 9 & 10) my daughter now attends Kolling and is WAY behind because of the school in Illinois she attended! Kolling only pulls students who live in St. John. Just as Munster, I don't see St. John having much affordable housing options. I don't believe there are any apartments and to get a home under $300k you would need to gut it and even with that there are not too many for sale. Most new build subdivisions are starting well over $350k. With several new subdivisions going up in St. John that is going to impact the attendance in the LC schools, of course that's another thread I suppose! Anyway, most of the crime here is petty stuff. Most of my neighbors came from Illinois, but surprisingly not from the South suburbs, but further West from more affluent areas of Illinois!
Just an FYI....As someone from the area, I don't think there was much (if any) affordable housing in Naperville or Barrington.
For what it's worth, the affordable housing considerations is not RDA's personal agenda; it's a nationwide movement. Even Illinois' most high end Chicago communities are seeing a big push from state and federal entities to provide more affordable housing - up to 10%. That includes Barrington, Naperville, La Grange, and so on. The theory being that people of lesser means and the communities that serve them are better off when such housing is spread across a metropolitan region rather than concentrated in large "ghettos" that property value sink holes that no one wants to live in. And I think is also differs on how affordable is defined. Typically, it varies from "low income" in that the income caps for living there are defined as a percentage of the median income of an area. Therefore, affordable housing in high income areas such as Munster, would have a higher income cap, be able to rent for higher, and thus attract a more stable level of occupant.
Overall it really depends on execution, and I haven't found much in specifics about what the state or federal requirements for this area would be. Duplicating Columbia Center in Hammond is certainly not going to do any community much good, but well planned affordable housing grouped with substantial market rate housing, and aimed at households making 40-50k a year could be workable and beneficial for attracting younger families and individuals who are just starting out.
I think we tried that "theory" before. See Lansing. See Zion. It isn't working out for those communities very well on average, huh? Meanwhile, the affluent are amassing at the city-core in former project locations.
Also, wasn't this theory being pushed by Julian Castro and team? Are Carson/Trump going to continue to shove it at us?
It blows my mind that the case studies that are already available in the region are just being ignored so that some "theory" can be expanded. Over time it appears clear that this movement of people is followed by decline in the overall area. We aren't bringing people up, people are being brought down. Or is that the whole point? Forced equality among the mid- and lower-classes because well you know everybody is the same and deserves equal everything.
Also, let's face it. The ultra-rich communities will not be taking these folks. No this will mostly be pushed on middle-class areas. Are they talking about doing this in Kenilworth?
I understand what you are saying. However, despite the deep funding cuts, Munster is still THE stop rated school district in NWI and has been (objectively, so) for a long time. Yes, the schools need to remain strong for the area to remain desirable but sometimes when I hear folks acting like Munster has gone or is going so far downhill but then they act like some places like Crown Point (which is having flight issues of its own on the north side), St. John, and Valpo (which has low-income housing that people have blamed crime issues on despite much of the crime not occurring at the low-income apartment complex as well as the heroin issue in Porter County) are devoid of issues or immune to the issues such as school funding (in which all three of those districts in addition to Munster have had issues), it makes me think if people truly think that moving out that way would truly insulate them from problems. As far as the uniformly affluent Illinois suburbs, I do agree that issues here could prevent folks from moving here despite the cost savings. As far as folks moving back into Illinois, that is more unlikely once they see the savings they have here but it is possible and has occurred.
I guess some people I hear out there just don't make sense. Moving from Hammond to Munster for better schools and safer environment makes sense. Moving from Merrillville to Crown Point (Center Township) for better schools and safer environment make sense. But when I have heard someone say they are moving from Schererville or Dyer to St. John due to "less apartments" and better schools (because they see that LC has a St. John address as well as Kolling) it makes no sense...Do these folks not realize that if Dyer and Schererville were to go downhill, it would have a direct negative impact on St. John as well as they share a school district? It would be the same as how the decline in Merrillville has also affected the north side of Crown Point as they are in the Merrillville district as well. Same thing with folks that move from Munster to Dyer or Schererville because of those fears. If Munster were to go downhill, Schererville and Dyer would see huge negative effects from that as well. Some folks are blaming the crime issues in the Pine Island area on Merrillville despite the fact that subdivisions such as Fox Run are basically adjacent to Merrillville and not only are very safe but also desirable. People refuse to believe that some issues are home grown.
Agree - despite funding cuts Munster schools are still excellent and there has been no decline in student performance. But the school is running in deficit mode (as many in the Region are) which I think can be helped if more funding is allocated to the schools out of these train districts.
Whoever is saying Munster is going downhill is not looking at objective facts. I think a case for the opposite can be made especially after the extension of south shore to the Dyer border. Nonetheless, education needs to remain a priority for the town. Don't kill your golden goose.
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.
