Mike May wrote:When the City puts [tax incremental financing] into a project, the project yields a physical object, such as a building, that increases the tax base to contribute to the repayment of the City’s investment. The key is to be certain the building is constructed and makes that contribution to taxes. The City is not a shareholder either in the developer of the project or any of the tenants of the project.
While this is most certainly true, it seems to be a bit misleading. Doesn't it follow that for the city to be "certain" that the building "makes that contribution to taxes", it must (by extension) be certain that the developer and/or tenants of the project will perform to their predicted potential? As seen at Edgewater, what if the predicted tax revenue is far less than anticipated? Isn't that tax contribution dependent upon their success?
Sure, the city isn't a direct "shareholder". But it sure seems to have a vested interest in their success. MPMay, am I missing something here?