This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
If people have memory, download the NCBG research and upload the research to a website that can be maintained after July, 2007. Then place the NCBG links (external links) to that website for the duration.
Academic studies or articles
If there are any recent academic studies or articles, please place them in the external links.
POV
This text of this page reflects an exclusively positive view of TIFs. As an avid opponent of TIFs, I feel as though a contrary perspective is needed, but I also don't feel like I can do it fairly. -- Seth Ilys05:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I read the page, I see no active positive message. There is no criticism written either -- if you explain why you disagree with TIFs here, I will edit the page to objectively reflect your remarks. --nelsonleese18:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"One manifestation of government-developer incest is the insidious Tax Increment Financing (TIF) zone. Instituted in 1977 and operating in 44 states, TIFs center around freezing the portion of property tax dollars that go into social services at current levels for some designated period of time, up to 30 years. The extra money earned from inflation and rising property values is channeled towards reinvestment in the neighborhood via city subsidies for developers. For an area to be designated a TIF by the mayor and city council, it must be officially considered 'blighted'. The idea is that after all this city-supported development, the area will no longer be a haven for blight.
Neither will the area be a 'haven' for low-income people, who get their social services and then their homes taken away as rents and property taxes rise in response to the reinvestment. What's worse, the excess money can be moved between TIF zones that border each other, so low income residents in a newer TIF area may be paying to further develop an area already gentrified by an existing TIF. Because TIFs can last for so long, developers may continue to get subsidies long after the area resembles a Starbucks-laced American Dream." http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?74002
I changed the name of a heading to bring attention to the fact that TIFs are under dispute -- I then included a summary of the opposing arguement with a link to gentrification. I don't know how to do the cite properly for the above listed web page.
Ileft most of the article as it was, however. Whether one agrees with the long term result of TIF districts, they do put money into the system, and this page only points to TIFs as a tool to accomplish just that end.--nelsonleese18:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an article or a report that questions the use of TIFs, just join in. this is Chriscarlos. I have added external links that are mixed, though most questioning the use of TIFs.
To see an example of TIF mechanics (full lifecycle), expand the graphgraph showing TIF results. Click to enlarge.
I checked the graphs links, and categories and added some catagories from this article to the image, I do understand the math and this graph is about as clear as it gets when it comes to illustrating the down side of TIF's and BID's ( Business improvement districts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_improvement_district ). Though i understand the math i could not do it justice( explaining the math ), other than to say that "government-developer incest"..."center around freezing the portion of property tax dollars that go into social services at current levels for some designated period of time, up to 30 years." is stating the case mildly, while "...gentrification..." is way soft! ...they do ( NOT ) put money into the system... See the GRAPH and please, DO, click to enlarge, The "cost of basic services" is not shown in red for no reason ( this is trash service, road repair and improvement, snow removal, disaster recovery... think of tornado warning systems in need of repair or never purchased... ) and all that red ink below in the triangle is what goes into that developers pockets ( it does ( NOT ) come back into the "...system, and this page only points to TIFs as a tool..." i can only accept that statement if the tool in question is a screwdriver and the "john q. publics", like us, are the screws. SORRY FOR ALL THE YELLING in this comment but i arrived late ( as usual ) to the discussion, with the graph shown full sized or larger the article would be more balanced, as is, on the whole, " This article is much improved, as far as" ...n... "POV. " "?rant?" JSo9-10 (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the entry itself is not lengthy, the reader who may wish more information can read an academic article or an opinion piece. And since there is not one viewpoint and there are various audiences who may wish information, the variety of links provides some idea of the viewpoints and the audiences involved in TIFs. Perhaps, in an ideal world, only academics or real estate specialists are concerned about TIFs. The fact is that we do not live in an ideal world. About the heading and the entry itself, I would recommend that you print the entry, proofread and improve how the information is presented, and leave out a biased view for or against the issue. The point of links in the document or at the end is to provide detailed information that the article itself is lacking.--Chriscarlos (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory and not a collection of links. If you think that a better and more complete article can be written that contains more expository text, you are invited to write one. References that support statements in the article are easily accepted here, but mere links that are not commented upon in the text are usually not a good idea. An article that contains more than ten external links is quite unlikely to ever be selected as a featured article.
If you feel that an issue that is as complex as this can be given justice on Wikipedia, then spend a few weeks or a month writing and adding to this entry. The fact is a simple, dull entry seems to work for this issue. The external links can be useful for a person who wishes more depth and who doesn't have a alot of time to know what people think on a certain issue. For one person to determine which links stay and which links are to be deleted seems to be a very elitist brand of editing, one that seems to go against the whole reason why Wikipedia exists. If one person could do this, then why not delete the whole entry and just start from scratch to reflect only your viewpoint? I think that it is a slippery slope from one person "cleaning up" the external links to one person re-writing and "cleaning up" the whole entry. And if you want, go to the American Civil War entry and clean up their "See also" links and "External Links" (which seems like a collection of links--an unpardonable thing, Civil War or not). I think that I would like to know if the PBS website for the Burns documentary would be deleted (as it is an old documentary) or the two blogs that are featured. I have contributed to two or three entries and feel that DEPTH is needed for external links when the entry is either controversial or too complicated to summarize in a neat, unbiased series of paragraphs. If you would like to add more DEPTH to the entry itself using the some of the external links you wish to delete, be my guest. If not, perhaps you can list a series of themes that the external links can touch on, and eliminate one or two of the links in each of the present themes that don't present sufficient relevant information in relation to the proposed themes (with the participation of those who have contributed to this article). The point is that one person determining what should stay or what should be deleted seems to be lacking in collaboration and an action that is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.23.18 (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Chriscarlos has twice reverted the removal of links by Hu12. He is an administrator who is very familiar with our policy on links, since he works at the anti-spam noticeboard. This article has been the target of spam. An anonymous editor, 12.70.86.10 (talk·contribs), has visited this article apparently trying to promote the Stone and Youngberg firm, adding links to them in several articles.
There is also a technical problem that the article doesn't use <ref> tags at present, but it should. Whoever has copious spare time might want to convert it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
