Bishop: With ‘help’ like this...? - State Policy For Providence A One-Way Street

Brian Bishop, GoLocalProv Guest MINDSETTER™

Bishop: With ‘help’ like this...? - State Policy For Providence A One-Way Street

Now that the budget’s gone by, the sudden focus of every political body in the state seems to be creating property tax breaks to ‘help’ Providence. Funny how easy it is to pass out money when it’s not yours.

Forgotten are the promises that Providence, already saddled with the lion’s share of the state’s non-profits, would not see yet more tax exempt property. The original I-195 corridor legislation recognized this problem and reinforced Providence’s jurisdiction over property tax policy in development planning.

But in a chilly economic climate that has seen the ‘meds and eds’ job engine visions give way to subsidized dormitories for yuppies, the Governor and the legislature appear to be outdoing each other in throwing Providence under the bus.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

This idea that the state should decide who gets local tax breaks is as inimical to municipalities as undercutting their bargaining leverage with firefighters or the imposition of a statewide property tax.

Is Providence its own problem?

Is Providence a different case though? Is the caricature imagined by many exurban Rhode Islanders, that Providence is the architect of its own demise, correct? Has the city, in this view, overreached by continuing to run its historic patronage mill, passing out arts and culture subsidies like candy, hamstringing businesses with red tape -- all while stressed from providing social services and education to the state’s most challenging demographic? And isn’t it the shifting of these burdens onto commercial and apartment property that have resulted in high taxes for real estate investments that have choked off development?

There is evidence to support this outlook, but there are also challenges to its snide view of Providence as the basket case and state policymakers as the adults in the room. With GQ naming Providence the coolest city in America, there is more than just high property taxes that is keeping developers from investing here.

According to a Lincoln Institute study, commercial rates in Providence are in the 4% range compared to a New England urban average of 2.5%. That 1.5% penalty is not insignificant in a struggling real estate market where it could represent your entire profit margin. But it’s not enough on its own to bar developers from stealing the march in the most chic spot in country!

Perhaps the state, that thinks Providence doesn’t offer enough incentive, ought to be looking in the mirror. Of course it faces the same dilemma as Providence. Will it cut services or gamble on increased economic activity in order to support tax cuts and development incentives that make Rhode Island attractive?  Or, God forbid, introduce major projects in Rhode Island to the competition of non-union contracting! 

But the Providence as villain motif continues with even one of its own Senators, Dominick Ruggeiro, leading the charge to take Providence tax policy from its elected leaders. Senator Ruggeiro, who apparently hasn’t gotten along perfectly with Mayor Elorza, uses his legislative position to grind this axe at the expense of his constituents.

He has, as window dressing, the state’s penchant for cranes in the air at virtually any cost. But whose cost should it be?

Who should pay for tax breaks?

Of course the theory is that the city gives up near term taxes it wouldn’t get anyway, but augments its tax base later on. Far from dragging its feet, the city has worked on this basis to facilitate projects from the Renassiance Hotel to GTech to Hasbro that bring or retain jobs in state.

The problem is that the state collects sales and income taxes immediately while the hundreds of millions of dollars in property tax breaks the city has foregone over 15 years have yet to produce the promised new tax base. And meanwhile the city has built a reputation for givebacks. Projects that don’t need them, or have issues other than tax rates, come looking to the city anyway. Little wonder that Providence is going slower on these breaks.

This is not a signal that the city is not open for development, but that it expects developers and the state to meet it halfway. Providence is proud to remain the state’s signature destination for shopping, restaurants, culture, tourism, urban living, education and creative economy. But it should not be called on to do so by funding incentives solely on taxes from existing businesses and neighborhoods.  And the evidence is, if the state makes property tax policy, things go worse for Providence.

What is the state’s track record?

The state cut the deal to give away property taxes on the Providence Place Mall for 30 years. With that kind of ‘help’, it isn’t just mismanagement that is ballooning Providence’s structural deficit.

Providence collects a token $300,000 of the $22 million in property taxes that should be due on the mall annually. The state subsidy, while not insignificant, is 1/6th of what Providence puts in, or about $3.5 million a year from sales tax collections -- and that for the shorter period of 20 years. So the city gets 1% of property taxes due but the state gets 70% of sales taxes collected and all the income tax from people who work there! 

It’s doubtful Providence will see much even after 30 years. You don’t need a crystal ball to know the owners will tell city and state leaders that they need to rejuvenate the mall, and that kind of investment can’t be made without a continuance of their tax breaks.

Indeed, precedent suggests just such an outcome if the state is running things. The legislature in 2010 unilaterally renewed expiring tax breaks only in Providence that should have been left to local decision. That cost the city $10 million a year for five years – or about the amount of deficit it was grappling with at the time. These were projects that had already been completed so no economic activity was even gained by the extensions. They were bailouts for connected developers - plain and simple.

And the state reinforces this problem by mollycoddling the ridiculous proposal that Providence give a Red Sox stadium treatment as overly generous as the Providence Place Mall. While Providence got a raw deal on the mall, at least it is the economic engine promised, generating $400 million in revenue annually. A stadium wouldn’t do a tenth of that. There has been plenty of resistance to state spending on a stadium, but nary a peep from state pols about the expectation that Providence give up property taxes for 30 years!

Of course the city must carefully calibrate tax relief for true short term stabilization that will contribute to the property tax base, while not giving such generous subsidies that projects become “virtual non-profits” that expect preferential tax treatment perpetually. Recent proposals ramp taxes up so they tend to be more like 60% tax discounts rather than complete giveaways. But the city must keep the term of these agreements under control, whereas the state shamelessly shills for longer agreements.

How about a real partnership, not a takeover?

The I-195 commission should emulate the cooperation between state and municipal interests at the Quonset Point industrial park. It has taken 40 years since the base closed to reach a point where the park is such a recognized contributor to the economy. The state could surely have rushed this artificially by legislating 20 year tax breaks from North Kingstown, but instead it took a slow and steady approach -- negotiating a standard 6 year program with the town.

If longer terms of 13 to 20 years are to be adopted for I-195 land (such as the Mayor Elorza and Council President Aponte are considering in a proposal to be heard June 30th at City Hall), the city ordinances should only give those longer abatements if the state matches the city investment dollar for dollar. It is the state that collects sales and income taxes while the city waits for property tax abatements to expire. 

Of course this isn’t to suggest the state simply subsidize every project in Providence. Rather, if the state must match Providence’s give backs, due diligence on permanent job creation resulting in tax collections to offset that state share should improve. That would be a real help for Providence and the state without the scare quotes.

Brian Bishop is on the board of OSTPA and has spent twenty years of activism protecting property rights, fighting overregulation and perverse incentives in tax policy.

The Highest Taxed Communities for 2015

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.