Blight Not Blighty

Here is Jim Guilfoil's letter to the editor and my response.

Letters - November 19 Issue


Declaration of blight shameful

The city can declare an 'area' blighted, without designating any particular property as 'blighted'. This smacks of a property grab so the city can increase tax revenues without a public hearing or encouraging citizens to take part in such a decision.

There has been an outcry around the country over the Supreme Court decision to allow such local sovereignty to override the rights of individual property owners. And for increased revenues to the city and for the speculators who profit from such 'development.

Highest and best use is a euphemism for market price and encourages the city to engage in pushing for land speculation. TIF should not be associated with such a shoddy practice.

Public need for roads, hospitals, schools, etc. should not be conflated with speculation for higher tax revenues. Does the city have any derivatives or stock swaps to get more revenue? Shame!

Daniel Guilfoil

Monona

***

My response:


Dear Editor:

I was happy to see Jim Guilfoil and Sunny Schubert getting along so famously in the November 19 issue of the Herald Independent. I often agree with Mr. Guilfoil, but I take exception to his letter to the editor crying 'shame!' over the city's recently approved redevelopment district located along the west side of Monona Drive in the city's north end.

The establishment of the district was on the last two council agendas. No member of the public appeared. There will be ongoing opportunities for public involvement and input.

The only purchase the city has made to date in the new redevelopment district was a voluntary sale.

Without government intervention, some properties are going to remain in a dilapidated state. Much of the area in the new redevelopment district is a good example. The market place has shown no inclination to improve those properties.

The government can play a positive role in moving the market by assembling the parcels into one unitary ownership. If we are successful in doing that, then at some point, yes, the property will likely be sold to private interests for redevelopment (This event is likely some time off.). The city government is not well-equipped to directly redevelop property.

I would expect that the person or company redeveloping those properties will be an investor in the community, not a speculator. The city made a somewhat similar decision, albeit on a faster time frame and larger scale, several years ago to acquire the Garden Circle property. I certainly consider the company that has built and now operates that senior housing, MSP, to be an investor in our city.

Any increased tax revenues will only occur because property values increase. Initially, the increased tax revenue will go toward paying for city project costs, including acquisition costs. Once those costs are eventually repaid (and that usually takes years), the increased property values will indeed help provide funds for roads and schools.

The mayor and city council and the Community Development Authority pursue these projects because we believe they will improve our community and not just to increase tax revenue. The developer takes a certain amount of risk and yes, the developer will also (hopefully) make some money.

I see no cause for shame.

Regards,

Doug Wood
Monona Alder