More Commentary

• Commentary: Bill aims to help American Indians in urban areas
• Commentary: Albuquerque Public Schools just can't admit they let down the children of Navajo Elementary
• Commentary: Volunteer vets provide animal care to New Mexico's pueblos and reservations

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation
• Albuquerque company participates in “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

Public infrastructure financing may not be a sexy topic, and it certainly isn't as easily digestible as most sound bites coming from Santa Fe. So long as the new roads, water and sewer lines, parks and schools are built where and when the new residents move to town, what's the worry? This year there are two pieces of legislation which address that very question.

The debate for many years has been over who pays for growth. Smart-growth advocates want developers to shoulder that responsibility, most especially those developers who wish to extend infrastructure out to the edge of the community — aka "greenfields."

Developers, on the other hand, believe the costs of building new neighborhoods for future residents should be spread among us all. Don't dare use the word "subsidy," although clearly that's what they want.

A few years ago, the home builder lobbyists fought tooth and nail to prevent reforms of the development impact fee law, which good-government groups and planners argue are necessary to ensure that new growth pays for itself.

This year, the question has morphed into: Who should pay, and who should bear the risks associated with growth? - with the debate again drawing lines in the sand between developers and almost everyone else.

Developers argue that new growth is a risky business. Will their product sell? Will there be a consumer base for their product? Will the infrastructure be available when it's needed, where it's needed, to serve the new residents?

All are very legitimate questions. The public treasury, however, should not bear the risks. Large developers have found a nifty way to hedge their bets and reduce their risks, using something called tax increment development districts.

In a TIDD, the developer can capture a portion of the new taxes - both gross receipts taxes and property taxes - that are generated within the TIDD and use those dollars to secure bonds to pay for the new streets and infrastructure. In exchange, our state and local government leaders agree to give up that portion of the new taxes for several decades into the future, which would have otherwise gone into the general fund.

Over the long term, we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars committed to 14 TIDDs already approved in the Albuquerque region. Economic development, new jobs, new tax revenues — that's the promise from TIDDs.

Although it sounds like a win-win, the experience from other states — Illinois and Missouri, for example — indicates there are potential risks to the public treasury:

• State and local governments may be hard-pressed to keep up with rising demands for services without the increment going into the general fund. Think about education and health care at the state level, and libraries and jails at the local level.

• Rather than creating new jobs, the TIDD may siphon off existing jobs and businesses from elsewhere in the region, shifting the tax base away from the established parts of our community, where the public treasury currently receives the tax revenue, to the TIDD, where the tax increment is committed to the new development.

• If the tax increment generated in the TIDD is insufficient to repay the bonds, the community's credit rating may fall. Experience in Kansas City, Mo., indicates that the city may be on the hook to make good on the bonds if problems occur.

New Mexico legislators have an opportunity to consider these risks. SB 434, sponsored by Sen. Cisco McSorley, an Albuquerque Democrat, asks for a two-year moratorium to put the brake on new greenfield TIDDs, while a newly-created task force examines this complex issue.

HB 451, sponsored by Belen Democrat Rep. Elias Barela, reduces the amount of state tax increments a new greenfield TIDD could capture, and it creates a task force to study TIDDs and make recommendations to the governor in June 2009.

Both measures deserve the public's attention and legislators' support. In a risky world, the public's interest needs to come first.

Lucero is a city planner and land use attorney with a consulting practice in Albuquerque.