Even the State of NJ thinks the recently passed “New Jersey Economic Opportunity Act of 2013” is a bad idea. However, the Act was confirmed by Trenton’s City Council and made applicable to Trenton by Ordinance 13-58.
The Act is meant to stimulate certain types of investment and create jobs in NJ. However, it does so at a high price of over $400,000 per job in tax credits and the loss of local property tax revenue for 20 years. It is targeted at four NJ cities including Trenton and requires those cities to forego substantial taxes that would otherwise be collected from property owners. The State’s Office of Legislative Services (OLS) did an economic analysis of the Act which estimates that in the best of circumstances the State’s investment would return 10% over 20 years. That’s .05% per year. We’d be better off investing in a savings account.
The OLS summarizes its findings below:
The Office of Legislative Services finds that the revenue impact of the substitute (the Act) is indeterminate with certain revenue losses due to tax incentive agreements which may or may not be fully offset by revenue increases from expanded business activity. The magnitude of the revenue losses from tax incentive agreements cannot be known because ERG and GROWNJ have no aggregate award cap from January 1, 2014 through the program expiration on July 1, 2018.
What’s worse is that the .05% yearly return assumes that the alternative is that no new jobs are created unless this Act is in place. That’s a horrible assumption and the OLS so much as admits it. Read the full analysis here.
So why did our City Council sign on for a bill that is so terrible for both the State and the City of Trenton?
It’s hard to say and there has been much speculation amongst activist. Some of facts surrounding the passage the Ordinance are as follows:
- Council passed it in a hurry with little to no public comment and on a Friday evening when the public was not likely to be in attendance at the meeting. This was suspicious.
- One person who did make it to the meeting was a developer from Robert Torricelli’s Woodrose development who stands to benefit from the Act.
- Days later that same Woodrose development handed out 500 free Turkeys at their development site in Trenton and invited local politicians Marge Caldwell-Wilson and Eric Jackson to be seen as having something to do with the gift.
- Robert Torricelli was reprimanded in the US Senate for corruption
So on the surface this deal is smelly and reeks of connected developers getting rich on the backs of taxpayers.
Given the OLS’ analysis it’s clear that NJ taxpayers are being shafted. The question is, “are Trenton taxpayers getting any benefit?”
First, we have to assume that Trenton taxpayers are suffering from this bad investment in a similar manner to our suburban friends. Our State income tax dollars are being wasted.
Then there’s the matter of lost property taxes that many in the activist community have complained about. This is trickier.
The deal is that a developer would pay no new taxes on improvements to a property for 10 years. During years 10 – 20 taxes on improvements would gradually be raised to reach 100% by year 20.
So this could stimulate new taxes, just not in some of our lifetimes. There is no guarantee that any property in Trenton could ever be developed (many abandoned properties have negative value). So getting something on those difficult plots of land and having the State stimulate that future tax benefit does have a positive benefit. Perhaps that’s what our Council members are reacting to (I’m giving them the benefit of a doubt).
But here are the problems:
The deal is unfair
This tax break is not available to all citizens or even all types of investment. For instance, there are exclusions on retail investment such as stores and restaurants. The deal is not available to homeowners or even condo owners. You and I can’t benefit from this Act and are in fact subsidizing those that do. The state and city should not be in the business of preferring one type of investment and one type of investor. They’re not that smart.
The deal will have unintended consequences
Trenton does not have unlimited developable land. The Act heavily incents developers to build non-retail commercial space or residential rental property. If all the prime development spots were taken for these purposes, then the price of retail and owner occupied development will go up. Many in Trenton’s revitalization community believe that if anything, Trenton needs to over index on owner-occupied housing and new retail amenities. This bill is likely to make that more difficult. In this regard we’re shooting ourselves in the foot.
There are better alternatives
A maxim in real estate development is that a building or land should find its highest and best use. This Act warps that concept by preferring only certain developers with certain kinds of projects. A better alternative is to establish a standard PILOT agreement and stimulus that are available to anyone investing in our cities. One such PILOT plan would offer a very high tax rate on land but a very low rate on improvements thereby rewarding high value or high density development no matter what type it is. This PILOT could even be made optional to existing landowners. This would be especially beneficial to home owners seeking to improve their homes. It could do away with existing abatements and negotiated PILOTs (long an opportunity for abuse). The state could directly and more transparently provide tax credits on the total value of a project of say $200,000 or more. This standard subsidy gets the State out of the dicey business of trying to manipulate the economy.
I suspect that the City of Trenton did not have a real voice at the table when this scheme was cooked up. Certainly it was foisted on the citizens of Trenton in a rush. This is a big problem as there is no evidence the State is acting in best interest of Trentonians.
An Act and Ordinance of this scale and importance (it fundamentally changes our tax structure) should never be considered in the current political situation where a Mayor indicted on corruption charges related to real estate development has only 6 months left in his term. Rather we need to let the next administration determine whether this deal fits into a strategic plan for Trenton. Let’s vote on it by making it one of the issues in the upcoming election.
Our City Council has done the citizen of a Trenton a disservice by allowing us to be bullied into the deal. There is an online petition being run to show opposition to Ordinance 13-58. I encourage all to sign it.