Part I
:: Trickle Down…
Issue 1
Volume 2
"Blight" + Tax Increment Financing
by Chris Hu
TIF and “Blight”
In Rhode Island, there are fairly straightforward legal prerequisites for the creation of a TIF district by any municipality in the state. Rhode Island General Law § 45-33.2-4, which governs the adoption of Tax Increment Financing project plans in the state, requires of the TIF area:
(i) That it is located in a “blighted and substandard area” as that term is defined in section 45-31-8(3), or that the project is needed to arrest blight or decay in the city or town and to prevent the area from becoming a blighted and substandard area;
(ii) That the project area would not by private enterprise alone, and without either governmental subsidy or the exercise of governmental powers, be developed or revitalized in a manner so as to prevent, arrest, or alleviate the spread of blight or decay.
While the second requirement—that private development would not occur “but for” the TIF zone—is also at issue in the TIF debate, it is impossible to disprove using GIS.
What is measurable using GIS tools is whether, or to what degree, the city’s TIF project meets the first requirement—that the TIF be “located in a ‘blighted and substandard area.’” “Blight” is hardly a precise term on its own, but the applicable state law provides some guidelines. Rhode Island General Law § 45-31-8, cited in the above TIF code as the source for the proper definition of “blighted or substandard area,” defines the term as such: “’Blighted and substandard area’ includes a ‘slum blighted area,’ a ‘deteriorated blighted area,’ or an ‘arrested blighted area,’ or any combination of these areas.” The law then goes on to define each of these subterms. Each of the more specific subterms stipulates physical deterioration or abandonment as the first characteristic of a blighted area. Additionally, the definition of “arrested blighted area” includes tax dilinquency as one of its qualifications, while the definitions of the other two areas cite overcrowding and high population density as important elements, as well as such factors as unsanitary conditions, diversity of ownership of lots, and inadequate provision of open spaces. Interestingly, the definition of “arrested blighted area” also includes description of such areas as being “unduly costly to develop soundly through the ordinary operations of private enterprise.”
However, any attempt
to measure the degree of “blight” in the proposed TIF areas runs
up against the problem of definition. As Gordon notes, “Blight is less
an objective condition than it is a legal pretext for various forms of commercial
tax abatement,” and Rhode Island, like most states, lacks clear standards
for determining whether or not a given area can be described as “blighted”
for the purposes of TIF creation. Most often, he notes, local officials simply
point to the existence of one or more of the vague characteristics in a “laundry
list” of “blight” descriptors in order to prove that the
TIF area meets this legal condition. Indeed, in the case of the Westside Connector
TIF, city officials claim that the area encompassed by the TIF district meets
these conditions, due to the incidence of “’age, obsolescence,
deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character or shifting uses; economic deterioration
or disuse, resulting from faulty planning,’” but there remains
little objective way to evaluate the truth of this claim.
tion density as important elements, as well as such factors as unsanitary
conditions, diversity of ownership of lots, and inadequate provision of open
spaces. Interestingly, the definition of “arrested blighted area”
also includes description of such areas as being “unduly costly to develop
soundly through the ordinary operations of private enterprise.”
However, any attempt
to measure the degree of “blight” in the proposed TIF areas runs
up against the problem of definition. As Gordon notes, “Blight is less
an objective condition than it is a legal pretext for various forms of commercial
tax abatement,” and Rhode Island, like most states, lacks clear standards
for determining whether or not a given area can be described as “blighted”
for the purposes of TIF creation. Most often, he notes, local officials simply
point to the existence of one or more of the vague characteristics in a “laundry
list” of “blight” descriptors in order to prove that the
TIF area meets this legal condition. Indeed, in the case of the Westside Connector
TIF, city officials claim that the area encompassed by the TIF district meets
these conditions, due to the incidence of “’age, obsolescence,
deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character or shifting uses; economic deterioration
or disuse, resulting from faulty planning,’” but there remains
little objective way to evaluate the truth of this claim.
download the entire document as a .pdf here
