Word is that one or two commissioners oppose the tax increment finance district that would bring a Lowes and adjoining strip center with it north of Ark City. We know that Mel Kuhn ran ads against the proposal during his campaign.
As I see it, there is an underlying tug of war here with a pro-development attitude on one side and a traditionalists, or taxpayer watchdog, attitude on the other.
The deal would essentially give tax revenue generated on the project back to the developers to finance improvements like roads and parking. While this seems like the progressive thing to do to provide more shopping options and increase sales tax revenues, there is a fear that it prioritizes suburban development and could canibalize existing stores such as Bryants and Westlake hardware stores.
Plus, there is a feel of corporate welfare to the whole thing. Who wants to subsize a big box store like Lowes?
I think, depending on the specifics of the deal, it's hard to say "NO" when this kind of opportunity comes knocking. In total, it appears a net benefit for the city, but there are costs to aiding and abetting retail development on the edge of town that competes with existing businesses.
I think the winners, politically, will be the commissioners who support the deal, especially after its up and running and people go shopping at Lowes (or whatever home supply store opens up there)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I keep hearing things about subsidizing Lowe's, but I also hear that Lowe's will have to pay ALL of their taxes. Which is it?
Is there really a shopping center or just Lowe's? I'm beginning to wonder who is pulling who's leg!
Post a Comment