Will City and developer STIF indiscretions cause the Governor to “slobber” in his cornflakes too?”
By Gary J. Groman
In last weeks column entitled, The MOAT, “Mother of All TIFs,” vs the STIF or “Whoops, someone slobbered in their corn flakes,” the Ole Seagull asked a question regarding the STIF, State TIF financing, for the Branson Landing project.The question was, “How could anyone, sign an affidavit specifying that the redevelopment area could not be reasonably anticipated to be developed without the State TIF?”
Well, it didn’t take too long to get an answer.On Monday, March 17, 2003, via email, Mr. Rick Huffman, one of the “members” of “HCW Development Company, L.L.C., said, “The reason I have signed an affidavit is because what I said is true.”
“Truth” is defined as, “Conformity to fact or actuality.”In “fact” and “actuality” the law, as applies to the Branson Landing Affidavit, is very simple and straightforward.It does not appear to require either the wisdom of a Solomon or the legal expertise of a lawyer to read and apply.
The statutory requirement for getting State Tax Increment Financing, the STIF, requires that the municipality submit an application to the state.In it, the “municipality shall include,” among other things, an affidavit, signed by the developer, “specifying that the redevelopment area would not be reasonably anticipated to be developed without the appropriation of the new state revenues” [the State TIF].
The “truth” appears to be a simple and straightforward “yes” or “no” determination.Is it reasonable to anticipate development within the redevelopment area without the State TIF or not, “Yes” or “No?”
Mr. Huffman continues on, “Without the TIF the convention center is Questionable at best.”Hum, this must be “developereese” for agreeing with the City’s apparent logic of, “‘synergy rhetoric’ aside, surely no one thinks we are ‘dumb’ enough to build a Convention Center in downtown Branson without $23-$80 million dollars from the state.Do they?”
He then points out that, “Without the convention center the lakefront retail and entertainment becomes a lesser project because the tenets we are working with will not come. We can still develop the lakefront, it just won’t be the project that everyone would be proud of.”
In “fact” and “actuality,” Mr. Huffman states specifically and currently, what has been stated by the City all along.Without the TIF there will be no convention center but that “We can still develop the lakefront, it just won’t be the project that everyone would be proud of.”Is that consistent with an affidavit “specifying that the redevelopment area would not be reasonably anticipated to be developed without the appropriation of the new state revenues” [the State TIF]?Not to an Ole Seagull.
He then asks, “Don’t you think it is fair, that if the City and the developer are willing to spend about 250ml, the State can let us have half of the tax revenue that we generate from it.”What an Ole Seagull may or may not think is “fair” has nothing to do with either what the statute pertaining to the affidavit requires or whether or not it could reasonably be anticipated that the redevelopment area would be developed without the State TIF.Those are matters of objective fact.
However, using that logic, wouldn’t it be “fair” to let those, who invested about $40 million dollars in “Celebration City,” keep half of the tax revenues it generates?Hey, we’re on to something here, think about all the money that might be invested in Branson, or the State of Missouri, if the State behaved in such a “fair” manner.
Like the rest of the states citizens, even the Governor and his Director of the Department of Economic Development are constrained by the requirements of the law.Had the City and the Developer had the discretion to restrain themselves from public comments about developing the Redevelopment Area without the State TIF they could have used the old “see, hear, and do nothing routine” and granted the TIF.
But, alas, the indiscretion of the City and the Developer has placed both the Governor and his Director of the Department of Economic Development in a very unenviable position.Will they too slobber in their cornflakes?Will they too apparently violate state law?Only time and an investigation by an appropriate state law enforcement agency will tell.
