Rising Debt in Fishers

Recently at the City Council's budget hearing, I was one of only two citizens who actually got up and spoke or asked questions about the Mayor's $69 million dollar budget plan for 2016. Even the Council seemed disinclined to ask any questions, even though they are the fiscal body for the City.

But I asked tough questions, as I have been doing for several years now, primarily aimed at Fishers' rising debt.  Here are some highlights, or lowlights, depending on your viewpoint.

• Fishers total debt is $274 million, up from about $70 million in 2008. 
• Of that total debt, over $150 million is in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) debt, the form of corporate welfare that keeps our tax base from actually growing and requires non-TIF homeowners and businesses to subsidize core services like police and fire for the TIF areas.
• Of the $69 million in spending for 2016, over $12 million is for debt payments, roughly 17% of the total. 

As I was making my remarks, the Council President actually tried to cut me off because he does not want the word to get out about these facts. After my remarks, he, the Mayor, and other Council members tried to defend this as being "fiscally conservative".  I am sorry, but if that kind of debt is "fiscally conservative", then that term is meaningless. 

Do you want pretend fiscal conservatives to continue to run everything without someone who will stand up, ask the hard questions, and say "Wait one minute!"?  If you are troubled by that, then please support me on November 3rd.

A Step in the Right Direction, Part 2

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post on this blog, which I called A Step in the Right Direction, which commented on a new development on Maple Street where a real estate office will be built, and without the TIF loans which characterized other downtown developments.  I noted I have been strongly critical of TIFs, for a number of reasons.

Since then I have had a some comments about how even this project involves what I have called "corporate welfare", that is taxpayer giveaways to do a particular development.  And they are correct, this project does do that. Some of those so-called incentives for this Maple Street project include:

• A sale price for the land of $25,000.  The Redevelopment Commission appears to have paid $175,000 for the property, then about $12,000 to demolish the existing structure built in 1940. The land has an appraised value of $95,500, so the new owner is getting it at a considerable discount. 
• Waiver of impact fees amounting to $58,000.00. 

The City was prepared to award TIF money, which it would borrow on its own credit, but that did not happen.  That was the point of my comment in the original post.  Again, this is a step in the right direction, but serious scrutiny needs to be given to other incentives.  At a minimum, the return to the taxpayer should be a net positive, not a negative. City Administration would doubtless argue (and have, publicly and privately) that the long-term benefits will be both tangible and intangible.  That is a conversation worth having.  

There are long-term liabilities to all the TIF and other taxpayer funding in the downtown redevelopment. Our total debt is skyrocketing.  The last total I was able to get, and then only by an official Public Records Act request, was over $250 million.  Per capita debt rose about 700% between 2007 and 2013, a period of time when our population also rose. Developments in TIF districts do not add to the tax base available to fund local government (including some impact on the schools) until the debt is paid off, even if a particular project did not get a TIF loan. Some of the TIF-funded projects, such as the Depot, Switch, and others, generate less in new tax revenue than is needed to make the debt service payments. 

And again, the Maple Street project does not do that. But there is nothing to prevent TIF funding from happening again unless citizens speak out, and make their voices heard at the ballot box. 

A Step in the Right Direction

As many know, I have been opposing the use of TIF districts to fund private development since 2007, when the Fishers Town Council pledged TIF funds to a redevelopment of downtown, and a project called Riverplace in the southwest corner of Fishers on 96th between Allisonville and the White River. Both of these proposals, enthusiastically backed by town leaders, were total and abject failures.  And in 2014, I objected to the TIF financing of the existing downtown projects, which are so risky that the developers of the "Depot" and "Switch" projects could not get private financing or bank loans and still make a profit on these deals.

But perhaps they did listen to me and the increasing chorus of voices complaining about these taxpayer handouts, which I had criticized as corporate welfare.  The newest downtown project will go in on Maple Street, buying a lot which had previously been purchased by the Fishers Redevelopment Commission, and will house a real estate company.  Even better, this business is not asking for any TIF funds nor even a tax abatement. They are getting a waiver of some impact and other fees.

So in a complete reversal of prior projects, which gave away public land for free and tens of millions of borrowed dollars to make it work, this project pays for the land, will pay future taxes, and likely create new jobs.

There is only one downside that I can see so far - the property is still in the downtown TIF, so the increase (called an increment) of new real estate taxes will go to pay for the TIF loans for other projects, and not to the general tax base to pay for necessary government operations such as police and fire services, among other things.

I have been strongly critical of TIFs, and I will continue that. I feel that they are fiscally irresponsible, non-transparent, and easily subject to abuse. They create winners and losers, making non-TIF taxpayers fund the bill for basic government services, and subsidize new business over old.

But the members of the Fishers government will hardly give me credit for any of this, but perhaps they are listening after all. And if elected to the City Council, I will continue to voice and fight for the citizens, whether or not anyone else is listening.

Issues vs Party Label

I have had an ongoing debate with a few people about whether or not people in Fishers will vote for a Democrat with whom they agree on issues, or if they will vote solely on party label.

Despite past history of "knee jerk" party line voting - something both parties have been guilty of - I hope and believe that the voters of Fishers will look at who is right and wrong on the issues, and vote accordingly.  I already have some Republican supporters, who see me as an independent, honest watchdog, and more fiscally responsible than my opponent.  So let's look at a few of those issues.

• Last fall the Fishers Council proposed adopting a new food and beverage sales tax.  I spoke against it at two council meetings, along with other citizens of various political labels.  My opponent not only supported the tax, he was adamant about it.  But it failed for lack of a majority.  I was right, my opponent wrong.
• I was the first chair of CityYes, the bi-partisan group that was successful in pushing for adoption of City status for Fishers, and protecting the right of citizens to vote for a Mayor.  My opponent waffled at first, then campaigned against the City referendum, and supported the failed "merger" that was walloped in the vote.  I was right, my opponent wrong.
• I spoke at the Feb. 17, 2014 meeting of the Council in opposition to the "no bid" contract with  a group of campaign donors to tear down the train station and "redevelop" the site with public land and $15 million in borrowed taxpayer dollars.  This form of corporate welfare was wrong, and I opposed it.  My opponent not only supported it, he touts it as a major accomplishment.  I was right, and my opponent wrong.
• I have openly opposed the $35 million total being spent on the various downtown projects, all in borrowed money.  My opponent again embraces all of this spending.  I was right, and my opponent wrong.
• I opposed the over-use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) which uses borrowed money to give to developers, and results in tax dollars being diverted away from schools to repay this debt. I oppose TIFs, my opponent has voted to make nearly all land in Fishers capable of development into a TIF, which kills our tax base growth.  I was right, and my opponent wrong.
• My opponent was a main figure in the disgraced and now-disbanded Royal Tiger PAC, which got campaign contributions from insiders and city contractors by promising them insider information before it was news.  One of the candidates supported by this corrupt bargain has been arrested on drug charges.  ALL of my campaign donations are from individuals, or me personally, not city contractors.  I have proposed a city ethics ordinance to end this practice. Again, I was right, and my opponent wrong. 

I have to say, I like John as a person, and his happy, engaging family.  But you vote for and against candidates based on their record.  And sorry John, there are way too many mistakes here.  So yes, I am a Democrat, but that actually means little on local issues. I could not identify a "Republican" or "Democrat" position on the things that come before the Council if I tried. So the main thing voters should judge by are the record of the candidates, and their positions.  Will this be enough?  We will find out on November 4th.

An Ethics Proposal

I have at various times written about the unseemly influence of those who receive government money from the Town of Fishers making campaign donations for the re-election of the incumbents who granted those contracts.  (See, "Is Fishers For Sale?" April 20, 2011, in my Hamilton County Politics blog).

Sadly, the current crop of incumbents learned the wrong lesson from their peers.  Several of the council incumbents formed and participated in a Political Action Committee (PAC) called the "Royal Tiger PAC", which promised donors inside information about what is happening in town government, of course in return for donations.   The donors to that PAC ended up being a veritable "Who's Who" of insiders in Fishers.

This was written about in scalding terms by Republican blogger Paul Ogden, in his Ogden on Politics blog in April 2014.  Ogden's post is here:  http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2014/04/is-3500-price-of-political-influence-in.html.  Ogden referred to this as "unseemly", which it certainly is, at a minimum.

Not only was Pete Peterson, the Fishers Council's vice-president and treasurer of the Hamilton County Republican Party, a central figure in this, but also Fishers Council President John Weingardt (my opponent), new Fishers Council member Eric Moeller, and defeated County Council candidate Andrew Dollard, who after the primary was arrested in a pill-peddling scheme.  (The lawyer in me notes the case is pending, and Dollard is entitled to the presumption of innocence,)  Royal Tiger has since been disbanded over the furor over what seems to be yet another instance of "pay to play" politics in Hamilton County.

Now, nothing about this is APPARENTLY illegal, although it would not take much for it to be illegal.  The town's vendors who make such donations clearly are expecting to get their money back somehow.  But to make it a "quid pro quo", such as "I will donate to your campaign $3500, and in return, you will vote for the contract that I want to build a new office building", would be a criminal offense.

Similarly, if someone were to have gone to a vendor, or group of them and said that they HAD to contribute to Royal Tiger or some other committee if they wanted to continue to get government contracts, that too would be criminal.  But as of yet, no one has stepped up with any details of such pressure, perhaps because if they DID, they would be cut out of the lucrative government contracts.

The "appearance of impropriety" can be as bad as the improper behavior itself. It corrupts the public's faith in government by making it appear that the People's Government is for sale to special interests who make campaign contributions. It makes government contractors think they HAVE to support incumbents if they want to keep government business. And it blurs the line between "legal" and "illegal".

So, I have a proposal.  The U.S. Supreme Court has made decisions that say that in some cases, campaign contributions cannot be restricted.  So what I propose is to give those who want government money a choice.  I propose a Fishers ordinance to prohibit the giving of a Fishers government contract, or any other financial benefit including economic development incentives, to anyone who donates to a political candidate for Fishers' office.  And this is not an unusual restriction. The U.S. Government has prohibitions against Federal government contractors making campaign donations in a Federal election.  Several states and municipalities have either adopted or have considered a similar restriction.

Let's get the corporate welfare and cronyism out of our local politics.  I pledge that if elected, I will work with other members of the City Council, regardless of political party, to adopt such an ordinance, and let Fishers be an ethical example for the rest of the State of Indiana.