Talk:Tax increment financing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Taxation (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of tax-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Finance (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Graph[edit]

Stop removing the graph. Calling it poorly worded is a low brow excuse for removing it.

Especially since you did not explain what is poorly worded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graphman2 (talkcontribs) 06:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

haven't seen the graph in question but I have seen the lazy editors that that increase their reputation by reverting huge amounts of text when at worst mild editing would have "made it clearer"/"better formatted"/"insert your own petty excuse for tearing up hours of work in three seconds"

I suggest you add the graph to the talk page (here for this article but talk page of whatever graph is about) to show the community the graph... that way you have community viewing it in a place the slash-hacks are not supposed to touch it... (after admiting it is a graph that only needs different legend/labels they cannot claim it is span, which is only thing that can be removed from a talk page by a different editor (you can remove your own though) --Qazwiz (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wish to either expand or reconfigure entry over three or four months, anyone wish to collaborate?[edit]

This entry needs something more of something. Does anyone want to help me rewrite it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.19.110 (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

NCBG[edit]

If people have memory, download the NCBG research and upload the research to a website that can be maintained after July, 2007. Then place the NCBG links (external links) to that website for the duration.

Academic studies or articles[edit]

If there are any recent academic studies or articles, please place them in the external links.

POV[edit]

  • all edits since around sept of 2011 are poorly done and seem biased in favor of TIFS, ctiticism should be left to critics. California has now discontinued the use of TIFs which says something since that is where they started. The intro was once short and informative, now it just seems designed to discourage people from reading. If you have to discourage knowledge to promote a product it says something about the product. On the graph controversy, if you want a graph it should be down in the article further and WELL DESIGNED easily read etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.233.28 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The chart is biased against TIF and is probably misnamed.Rbacigal18 (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This text of this page reflects an exclusively positive view of TIFs. As an avid opponent of TIFs, I feel as though a contrary perspective is needed, but I also don't feel like I can do it fairly. -- Seth Ilys 05:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As I read the page, I see no active positive message. There is no criticism written either -- if you explain why you disagree with TIFs here, I will edit the page to objectively reflect your remarks. --nelsonleese 18:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "One manifestation of government-developer incest is the insidious Tax Increment Financing (TIF) zone. Instituted in 1977 and operating in 44 states, TIFs center around freezing the portion of property tax dollars that go into social services at current levels for some designated period of time, up to 30 years. The extra money earned from inflation and rising property values is channeled towards reinvestment in the neighborhood via city subsidies for developers. For an area to be designated a TIF by the mayor and city council, it must be officially considered 'blighted'. The idea is that after all this city-supported development, the area will no longer be a haven for blight.
Neither will the area be a 'haven' for low-income people, who get their social services and then their homes taken away as rents and property taxes rise in response to the reinvestment. What's worse, the excess money can be moved between TIF zones that border each other, so low income residents in a newer TIF area may be paying to further develop an area already gentrified by an existing TIF. Because TIFs can last for so long, developers may continue to get subsidies long after the area resembles a Starbucks-laced American Dream." Slingshot Issue #074 article Title:"Gentrification" sub "Real estate, the root of evil" Paragraph 4
Feel free to change the page to objectively take this point of view into consideration. 72.128.82.91 08:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
link updated --Qazwiz (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I changed the name of a heading to bring attention to the fact that TIFs are under dispute -- I then included a summary of the opposing arguement with a link to gentrification. I don't know how to do the cite properly for the above listed web page.
Ileft most of the article as it was, however. Whether one agrees with the long term result of TIF districts, they do put money into the system, and this page only points to TIFs as a tool to accomplish just that end.--nelsonleese 18:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • With User:Nelsonleese's edits, this article seems to have an NPOV balance. I have therefore removed the label. Verne Equinox 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If you have an article or a report that questions the use of TIFs, just join in. this is Chriscarlos. I have added external links that are mixed, though most questioning the use of TIFs.

This article is much improved, as far as POV. I'd still like to see more examples of TIF mechanics (full lifecycle). --Overhere2000 03:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To see an example of TIF mechanics (full lifecycle), expand the graph

[[

File:TIF graph.pdf|thumb|right|graph showing TIF results. Click to enlarge]].

I checked the graphs links, and categories and added some catagories from this article to the image, I do understand the math and this graph is about as clear as it gets when it comes to illustrating the down side of TIF's and BID's ( Business improvement districts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_improvement_district ). Though i understand the math i could not do it justice( explaining the math ), other than to say that "government-developer incest"..."center around freezing the portion of property tax dollars that go into social services at current levels for some designated period of time, up to 30 years." is stating the case mildly, while "...gentrification..." is way soft! ...they do ( NOT ) put money into the system... See the GRAPH and please, DO, click to enlarge, The "cost of basic services" is not shown in red for no reason ( this is trash service, road repair and improvement, snow removal, disaster recovery... think of tornado warning systems in need of repair or never purchased... ) and all that red ink below in the triangle is what goes into that developers pockets ( it does ( NOT ) come back into the "...system, and this page only points to TIFs as a tool..." i can only accept that statement if the tool in question is a screwdriver and the "john q. publics", like us, are the screws. SORRY FOR ALL THE YELLING in this comment but i arrived late ( as usual ) to the discussion, with the graph shown full sized or larger the article would be more balanced, as is, on the whole, " This article is much improved, as far as" ...n... "POV. " "?rant?" JSo9-10 (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Hey guys, I'm new to this conversation, but this graphic is definitely POV. "Red ink" is a loaded term. Can we find a way to improve things? Perhaps the thing to do would be to add in some language that notes that this is the critics' view (and then pair that with the supporters' view). Karichisholm (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No the graph is not POV. In fact it is an honest representation of most uses of TIF. It has been fully vetted by lawyers and TIF experts. It is far more accurate and honest than anything any Urban Renewal agency ever created. It is precisely accurate to refer to the missing revenue as red ink. That is the funding hole left behind by diverting the increment property taxes.

Every graph or chart I have seen created by urban renewal agencies has omitted both the rising cost of basic services and the fact that the increment consists of every property tax increase throughout the district that would have happened without the Urban Renewal plan or projects. In most cases those dollars are a substanial portion of the entire increment. In many cases the UR plan & projects generate very little new revenue compared to the revenue taken. And of course more property taxes are also taken from basic services due to debt service costs.

I have witnessed UR agency staff and politicians telling people that all of the revenue in the increment is created by the UR projects. This is of course a bald faced lie.

So next time one of you tries to change this to obscure the truth about TIF you better bring more than usual misrepresentations by the folks whose jobs depend on these TIF ponzie schemes. Graphman2

I see the peddlers of UR schemes are back trying to remove the honest graph that has been thoroughly validated by lawyers and Tax Increment Financing experts. I'll undo every attempt.

This is expected. The proponents of TIF don't like voters to know how it works. They prefer the dishonest municipal version that leaves out rising costs, how funding is diverted and how most of the increment would have been availble for those rising costs without any Urban Renewal plan or projects at all. Graphman2

I am Graphman2 and someone keeps taking down the TIF I created and orignially posted. This last time they took the graph off of the commons claiming there was a copyright violation. There is no copyright and anyone is free to use the graph.

recent tagging[edit]

this article has far too many external links, the section headers aren't appropriate, a host of problems ninety:one 22:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the entry itself is not lengthy, the reader who may wish more information can read an academic article or an opinion piece. And since there is not one viewpoint and there are various audiences who may wish information, the variety of links provides some idea of the viewpoints and the audiences involved in TIFs. Perhaps, in an ideal world, only academics or real estate specialists are concerned about TIFs. The fact is that we do not live in an ideal world. About the heading and the entry itself, I would recommend that you print the entry, proofread and improve how the information is presented, and leave out a biased view for or against the issue. The point of links in the document or at the end is to provide detailed information that the article itself is lacking.--Chriscarlos (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory and not a collection of links. If you think that a better and more complete article can be written that contains more expository text, you are invited to write one. References that support statements in the article are easily accepted here, but mere links that are not commented upon in the text are usually not a good idea. An article that contains more than ten external links is quite unlikely to ever be selected as a featured article.

If you feel that an issue that is as complex as this can be given justice on Wikipedia, then spend a few weeks or a month writing and adding to this entry. The fact is a simple, dull entry seems to work for this issue. The external links can be useful for a person who wishes more depth and who doesn't have a alot of time to know what people think on a certain issue. For one person to determine which links stay and which links are to be deleted seems to be a very elitist brand of editing, one that seems to go against the whole reason why Wikipedia exists. If one person could do this, then why not delete the whole entry and just start from scratch to reflect only your viewpoint? I think that it is a slippery slope from one person "cleaning up" the external links to one person re-writing and "cleaning up" the whole entry. And if you want, go to the American Civil War entry and clean up their "See also" links and "External Links" (which seems like a collection of links--an unpardonable thing, Civil War or not). I think that I would like to know if the PBS website for the Burns documentary would be deleted (as it is an old documentary) or the two blogs that are featured. I have contributed to two or three entries and feel that DEPTH is needed for external links when the entry is either controversial or too complicated to summarize in a neat, unbiased series of paragraphs. If you would like to add more DEPTH to the entry itself using the some of the external links you wish to delete, be my guest. If not, perhaps you can list a series of themes that the external links can touch on, and eliminate one or two of the links in each of the present themes that don't present sufficient relevant information in relation to the proposed themes (with the participation of those who have contributed to this article). The point is that one person determining what should stay or what should be deleted seems to be lacking in collaboration and an action that is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.23.18 (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that Chriscarlos has twice reverted the removal of links by Hu12. He is an administrator who is very familiar with our policy on links, since he works at the anti-spam noticeboard. This article has been the target of spam. An anonymous editor, 12.70.86.10 (talk · contribs), has visited this article apparently trying to promote the Stone and Youngberg firm, adding links to them in several articles.
There is also a technical problem that the article doesn't use <ref> tags at present, but it should. Whoever has copious spare time might want to convert it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat unbalanced[edit]

I came onto this article looking for information about TIFs in Britain but everything seems to be about the U.S.A.. From the tiny amount I already know, there seem to be some differences here so this article is not very informative or helpful. I know hardly anything about TIFs beyond what I learnt in this article so I wouldn't be able to add anything but could someone please add more information about TIFs outside of America.86.149.111.2 (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammar[edit]

"TIF began in California in 1952, but the state has currently discontinued the use of them due to a couple of lawsuits.[3][4]" ---Dagme (talk) 15:20, 30 September, 2013 (UTC)

This article is unacceptable.[edit]

The article simply does not explain what Tax increment financing is. It talks around the topic but does not give a clear explanation. ---Dagme (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)