Brownfield development
Taxpayers – with good reason – are often skeptical of state-sponsored tax incentive programs, the kind used to lure companies to Rhode Island.
Why, after all, should big business get a break while the price of groceries and gas continues to rise?
Seifert Systems Invests in Energy Efficiency to Strengthen Operations
For manufacturers, energy is more than just another operating expense. It plays a critical role…
Learn More
In some cases, tax incentives work for the better of us all. A couple of years ago the shining example of that premise was the decision by mutual fund giant Fidelity Investments to build a spacious campus in Smithfield – employing hundreds of Rhode Islanders. Fidelity came to Rhode Island after the General Assembly passed several incentive programs designed specifically for such financial services operations.
Now, we have another example of tax incentives paying off.
In recent years, at both federal and state levels, new programs have been put in place that provide tax incentives for brownfield remediation. According to a state DEM official, since those programs have been instituted, 530 acres of once-discarded land has been redeveloped, resulting in $3 million in state taxes and more than 1,000 new jobs.
Where developers and commercial real estate professionals once shied away from brownfield properties – fearing either lawsuits or simply time-consuming projects – now they are taking a much longer look, considering the possibilities.
There are now rules in place that allow a perspective purchaser to enter an agreement with the state so that they will not be held liable for existing contamination as long as it is cleaned up and the property continues to be used for mixed-use purposes.
It’s an example of government working well – of giving a little, and getting a whole lot back in return.
Cooperation
Every once in awhile someone suggests that one way to get local government spending under control is through consolidation of our 39 cities and towns or regionalization of the state’s school systems.
Suggestions are made, but there is rarely an effort at consolidation. Politics might be to blame, along with old New England traditions that still maintain town meetings in some communities. Get out of New England and you find in some places a blurring of town lines, with extensive services actually provided by larger counties, encompassing several cities and towns.
If we can’t consolidate, then how about we cooperate. Gary Sasse of the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council suggests that towns could coordinate some public services better, sharing some services and reducing costs.
It is generally recognized that property taxes in Rhode Island are high. Maybe if we cooperate and consolidate some services we can help reduce those taxes, as statewide politicians explore how to shift the burden of funding education from the property tax to some other overall tax system.
It seems ironic that we are developing an economic strategy that calls for regional cooperation among a number of New England states, when we have yet to develop a regional strategy that allows all of Rhode Island’s cities and towns to cooperate and share services.
We think it may be time for the governor and the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns to jointly explore how communities can consolidate services that help trim budgets and ultimately reduce the local tax burden.
