A simple question

[Tom Araya]

Alright, I'm hoping the anarchists can answer this one for me:

Why is it that we marvel at the "power" possessed by some suburban developer or the ingenuity of some local entrepreneur and that when markets flex their muscles it is productive, organic, and democratic, but when government is the driving force behind the same sort of development, power becomes destructive, top-down, arbitrary, and tyrannical?

I'm hoping for some honest, heart-felt answers, not some silly whimsical response you get from the daily Republican talking-points memo.

[oldtimer]

I need examples........but, I probably won't post much.....having problems with my eyes today.

[Denmom]

Tom, so are you saying the developer is a suburban driving soccer person? If so, I am all for his developing what ever he wants. :lol:

[mconn]

Probably because the goverment does it with someone elses money Tom, while the individual does it on their own.

I and many others may not want our money spent the way a few politicians
do.

Pretty basic stuff really.

[chad_hopkins]

That is exactly right mconn
The govenment does it with our money,
and usually the ingenuity is borrowed or aquired through tyrannical means
Take for instance the government of Chad kicking out US oil companies under the premise of tax evasion. When really they will nationalise their oil. Not saying there is anything wrong with it, just why it happens.

[RP-in-Nebraska]

Tom, since you posted this in a drunken stupor, I'm not sure I understand exactly what it is that you are asking.

However, I think MConn is on to something.

[Tom Araya]

Let me add the second part to this then. Most major development projects these days (in fact, the vast majority) rely on tax subsidies, tax givebacks & reimbursements, TIFs, tax abatements, etc. Developers lobby legislatures heavily to ensure such measures are enacted. Is it not disengenuous to assume that capitalism is as pure and simple as many of you make it out to be? Aren't tax-supported enterprises just another example of welfare? Wouldn't government be better off in some cases eliminating the middle man & just building something for the benefit of the masses instead of just for the benefit of a couple of people who will both reap tax receipts AND profits?

Just asking, I'm stupid, I don't understand such things, I rely completely on smart Republicans to tell me what to do.

[Denmom]

YOu definitely aren't talking about personal home developments getting tax abatements or anything. That isn't happening. My ex builds commercial building in Lake of the Ozarks and I am sure if they is any abatement he wouldn't know anything about it.

[Tom Araya]

I don't know your personal situation Denmom, but I do know that just about all of the development in Chesterfield was financed with tax dollars. So was the Dome.

Even "blighted" areas like Kansas City's Plaza get TIF money. How is this any better than government being the developer? In my opinion, if government develops a site, then the people who paid for the development (the taxpayers) should benefit from it economically. When TIF law was written, it was intended to be used to revitalize economically depressed areas. Now we give it to Wal-Mart so they can build new stores in the suburbs RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from the store they just built 10 years ago.

Again, I'm stupid and need some really smart Republican to educate me. (And Mr. Conn, just so you know, I'm no Democrat, so pick some new insults for me.)

[RP-in-Nebraska]

Let me add the second part to this then. Most major development projects these days (in fact, the vast majority) rely on tax subsidies, tax givebacks & reimbursements, TIFs, tax abatements, etc. Developers lobby legislatures heavily to ensure such measures are enacted. Is it not disengenuous to assume that capitalism is as pure and simple as many of you make it out to be? Aren't tax-supported enterprises just another example of welfare? Wouldn't government be better off in some cases eliminating the middle man & just building something for the benefit of the masses instead of just for the benefit of a couple of people who will both reap tax receipts AND profits?

Just asking, I'm stupid, I don't understand such things, I rely completely on smart Republicans to tell me what to do.

Is this entire post written in jest? Or just the last line? Or neither?

I don't really know very much about this. However, I would have to agree for the most part that it is similar to welfare. The revitilization money was intended to help low income and dilapidated communities but I'm sure corporate lawyers know how to get around such intentions and find the loopholes. Perhaps the laws ragarding this situation need to be written more thoughtfully.

[oldtimer]

Let me add the second part to this then. Most major development projects these days (in fact, the vast majority) rely on tax subsidies, tax givebacks & reimbursements, TIFs, tax abatements, etc. Developers lobby legislatures heavily to ensure such measures are enacted. Is it not disengenuous to assume that capitalism is as pure and simple as many of you make it out to be? Aren't tax-supported enterprises just another example of welfare? Wouldn't government be better off in some cases eliminating the middle man & just building something for the benefit of the masses instead of just for the benefit of a couple of people who will both reap tax receipts AND profits?

Just asking, I'm stupid, I don't understand such things, I rely completely on smart Republicans to tell me what to do.

Oh, you mean like the St. Louis Football and Baseball stadiums?

[Denmom]

So you much all those PSL and Seat Premium fees didn't pay for most of those buildings? Dang, I want my money back.

[Tom Araya]

Let me add the second part to this then. Most major development projects these days (in fact, the vast majority) rely on tax subsidies, tax givebacks & reimbursements, TIFs, tax abatements, etc. Developers lobby legislatures heavily to ensure such measures are enacted. Is it not disengenuous to assume that capitalism is as pure and simple as many of you make it out to be? Aren't tax-supported enterprises just another example of welfare? Wouldn't government be better off in some cases eliminating the middle man & just building something for the benefit of the masses instead of just for the benefit of a couple of people who will both reap tax receipts AND profits?

Just asking, I'm stupid, I don't understand such things, I rely completely on smart Republicans to tell me what to do.

Oh, you mean like the St. Louis Football and Baseball stadiums?

Actually, I believe St. Louis' new baseball stadium was largely financed with private money.

[Tom Araya]

[quote="Tom Araya":2103e]Let me add the second part to this then. Most major development projects these days (in fact, the vast majority) rely on tax subsidies, tax givebacks & reimbursements, TIFs, tax abatements, etc. Developers lobby legislatures heavily to ensure such measures are enacted. Is it not disengenuous to assume that capitalism is as pure and simple as many of you make it out to be? Aren't tax-supported enterprises just another example of welfare? Wouldn't government be better off in some cases eliminating the middle man & just building something for the benefit of the masses instead of just for the benefit of a couple of people who will both reap tax receipts AND profits?

Just asking, I'm stupid, I don't understand such things, I rely completely on smart Republicans to tell me what to do.

Is this entire post written in jest? Or just the last line? Or neither?

I don't really know very much about this. However, I would have to agree for the most part that it is similar to welfare. The revitilization money was intended to help low income and dilapidated communities but I'm sure corporate lawyers know how to get around such intentions and find the loopholes. Perhaps the laws ragarding this situation need to be written more thoughtfully.[/quote:2103e]

Wouldn't it be nice if I wasn't always playing devil's advocate so you'd know where I stand? But then, this board would be really boring.

Anyway, the laws are generally written by the developers, who get to write the laws because of their enormous campaign contributions. Or maybe I'm just cynical.

[oldtimer]

[quote="Tom Araya":1f80d]Let me add the second part to this then. Most major development projects these days (in fact, the vast majority) rely on tax subsidies, tax givebacks & reimbursements, TIFs, tax abatements, etc. Developers lobby legislatures heavily to ensure such measures are enacted. Is it not disengenuous to assume that capitalism is as pure and simple as many of you make it out to be? Aren't tax-supported enterprises just another example of welfare? Wouldn't government be better off in some cases eliminating the middle man & just building something for the benefit of the masses instead of just for the benefit of a couple of people who will both reap tax receipts AND profits?

Just asking, I'm stupid, I don't understand such things, I rely completely on smart Republicans to tell me what to do.

Oh, you mean like the St. Louis Football and Baseball stadiums?

Actually, I believe St. Louis' new baseball stadium was largely financed with private money.[/quote:1f80d]

Never mind..........But, the football stadium was built with some state funds! I hope, or I won't be able to post again on this thread.

[RP-in-Nebraska]

Anyway, the laws are generally written by the developers, who get to write the laws because of their enormous campaign contributions.

I have no idea. You could be correct. However, no matter who writes a bill, the city/county/state/national legislatures must first pass it before it becomes law.