TIFs Fail to Meet Expectations

Corporate Welfare |
By Patrick Tuohey | Read Time 2 minutes minutes

Steve Vockrodt over at The Pitch has an excellent column about how taxpayer subsidized development projects often underperform their goals. He writes in part:

Developers often win over politicians and the public by promising that TIF will help "create" a certain number of new jobs. But those projects often miss the mark, and at times by a wide margin.

Last month, the Missouri Department of Revenue released its annual report for all TIF projects in Missouri. The numbers were stark.

Among the 504 TIF districts across the state, developers estimated that 266,261 new jobs would be created. In fact, 89,485 were realized. That's 33 percent of the projection.

The annual report that Steve cites is here. Pages 258 and 259 show that now that the Power & Light District’s KC Live project is completed, only 1,003 of the projected 2,034 jobs have been realized. The reality, however, could be much worse than that.

Using data provided by Kansas City's Regulated Industries Division, we sought to see if there was any citywide increase in either liquor licenses issued to businesses or the liquor cards issued to individuals who work in bars and restaurants. The chart below shows that since the Power & Light District opened in 2008, these numbers have been flat.

If KC Live created jobs as the TIF report suggests, yet citywide employee liquor cards remained flat, it means that the TIF didn’t so much create jobs as just move them from elsewhere in the city such as Westport or just outside the TIF area.

Yet the financial costs to the city and other taxing jurisdictions for this storefront shuffling are very real. In addition to the cost of foregone tax revenue, the city must pay about $15 million each year to cover the underperforming investment through 2040. 

The question that responsible policymakers must consider is not merely how to move jobs and residents downtown, but at what cost? The city has shown that it can drive property development downtown by paying for it. That's hardly impressive. But it cannot show that there is any real net economic benefit citywide. Without that, we're just throwing good money after bad.

About the Author

Patrick Tuohey is a senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute and co-founder and policy director of the Better Cities Project. Both organizations aim to deliver the best in public policy research from around the country to local leaders, communities and voters. He works to foster understanding of the consequences — often unintended — of policies regarding economic development, taxation, education, policing, and transportation. In 2021, Patrick served as a fellow of the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas. He is currently a visiting fellow at the Yorktown Foundation for Public Policy in Virginia and also a regular opinion columnist for The Kansas City Star. Previously, Patrick served as the director of municipal policy at the Show-Me Institute. Patrick’s essays have been published widely in print and online including in newspapers around the country, The Hill, and Reason Magazine. His essays on economic development, education, and policing have been published in the three most recent editions of the Greater Kansas City Urban League’s “State of Black Kansas City.” Patrick’s work on the intersection of those topics spurred parents and activists to oppose economic development incentive projects where they are not needed and was a contributing factor in the KCPT documentary, “Our Divided City” about crime, urban blight, and public policy in Kansas City. Patrick received a bachelor’s degree from Boston College in 1993.

Similar Stories

Support Us

Headline to go here about the good with supporting us.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging