Comments on: Toe-May-Toe / Toe-Mah-Toe http://johnknoxwhite.com/2008/02/27/toe-may-toe-toe-mah-toe/ mindfulness in the face of a challenge Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:41:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: dave http://johnknoxwhite.com/2008/02/27/toe-may-toe-toe-mah-toe/comment-page-1/#comment-572 dave Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:34:46 +0000 http://johnknoxwhite.com/2008/02/27/toe-may-toe-toe-mah-toe/#comment-572 I haven't completed the CSUH study, but there are already 2 red flags: 1) It claims a 7-1 multiplier, which is so laughably high it cannot be taken seriously. 2) It was funded by the California Redevelopment Association. Further coments when I get through it. I haven’t completed the CSUH study, but there are already 2 red flags:

1) It claims a 7-1 multiplier, which is so laughably high it cannot be taken seriously.

2) It was funded by the California Redevelopment Association.

Further coments when I get through it.

]]> By: dave http://johnknoxwhite.com/2008/02/27/toe-may-toe-toe-mah-toe/comment-page-1/#comment-570 dave Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:09:58 +0000 http://johnknoxwhite.com/2008/02/27/toe-may-toe-toe-mah-toe/#comment-570 No time now to post a lot of data, but a few quick points of riposte and rebuttal: -Even if it is a small portion of the deficit, are you saying that a little fraud, waste & abuse is OK? A minor case of leprosy is no big deal? Bad policy is bad policy, regardless of size or one's ardor for first run movies. -Gross sales tax revenue is relatively static. It has a reasonably strong correlaton to population & GNP growth. The sales tax genearted by redevelopment is mostly not new, a lot of it is cannibalized from other places. This annoying little reality significantly dulls the luster of RD's projections and claims. -Many projects funded by redevelopment are simply not economically feasible without the subsidy. I can think of one modest example locally... 2 fold problem: A) A govt entity is entering the world of entrepreneurial risk, which is absolutely not its place. They are adminstrators and regulators, not developers. B) they are entering into risky deals (deals so risky that private sector pros passed on them) that don't generate appropriate risk adjusted returns. If ones does take the fiscally reckless tack that govt should enter the commercial RE biz, then it should at least be earning returns commensurate with the risk they are saddling the taxpayers with. More later, I'm busy generating tax revenue No time now to post a lot of data, but a few quick points of riposte and rebuttal:

-Even if it is a small portion of the deficit, are you saying that a little fraud, waste & abuse is OK? A minor case of leprosy is no big deal? Bad policy is bad policy, regardless of size or one’s ardor for first run movies.

-Gross sales tax revenue is relatively static. It has a reasonably strong correlaton to population & GNP growth. The sales tax genearted by redevelopment is mostly not new, a lot of it is cannibalized from other places. This annoying little reality significantly dulls the luster of RD’s projections and claims.

-Many projects funded by redevelopment are simply not economically feasible without the subsidy. I can think of one modest example locally… 2 fold problem:

A) A govt entity is entering the world of entrepreneurial risk, which is absolutely not its place. They are adminstrators and regulators, not developers.
B) they are entering into risky deals (deals so risky that private sector pros passed on them) that don’t generate appropriate risk adjusted returns. If ones does take the fiscally reckless tack that govt should enter the commercial RE biz, then it should at least be earning returns commensurate with the risk they are saddling the taxpayers with.

More later, I’m busy generating tax revenue

]]>