Sometimes I think you people have been shooting the messanger for delivering the message. Like it, hate it, or throw darts at it; we have a crime problem. There are other problems; roads are bad, the sewer system is in disrepair, businesses are having a hard time making it, taxes are up, George W. Bush for you Liberals. Pick one.
The state government made the 2,000 foot residency rule, not us. Let them know we don't want the sex offenders any closer, any time, period. They could also pass a law, that gives the offender a hearing to check the seriousness of the offense, and the possibility to expunge the offense from their record. If they kept their nose clean, remove their record. If they re-offend, give them life.
They're the ones who passed the welfare and low-income laws, and helped put up the complexes that doom these people to fail, when their own leader calls it a dismal failure. What's it take to get welfare reform? Hold them accountable.
They're the ones who let the criminals walk, or give them a lenient sentence. 30% of the voters let the Judges know we're not happy with the status quo. We voted no and will do so again if changes aren't made.
While they're at it they could quit spending our money so that when we retire we might get the honor of getting back 10% of what we paid in to Social Security for decades.
If the leaders and people of this city think that giving handouts to low income families is a way to increase the city's population, they are partly correct. Numbers will show an increase; and with it an increase in crime, juvenile problems, drop-outs, and the well being of our city as well. Davenport's poverty level is 10.5% now, the Quad City area's poverty level is over 20%. There are other things I would like this area to be known for.
How about something different? Why not try a new approach and let Congress, the House, the City Council, and the school board know that we, the people, expect them to do their job. Tell the judges to put these jerks in jail and pump them daylight. Make the prisons so terrible they don't want to go back. Make public records public. I don't know what part of this politicians don't get, but if it's public information it should be made available to the public.
I have a lot of things to get done before it cools off again, so this is also an open thread. I will try to check back over the weekend, but no guarantees. So, beat up on me if you must; agree, disagree, or come up with something else because I'll be wrenching all weekend. Come Monday I'll be cruisin with the kinda shiney side up.
And if you're for the war, or against it, please say a prayer for our troops in harms way. If you don't know one, I just happen happen to have one handy-
"Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us. Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Let's talk about economics of Section 42, both topics of interest to QCI. Tax credits don't blow away like dirt off 53rd Street. They come off the tax bill owed by the investors. The tax bill owed to the American people. Yes we have subsidy. On a $2 million tax credit deal the investor makes a profit of perhaps $200,000. The profit off the top depends on how much the investor pays for the credits. If done smartly they also save on taxes still owed by dropping into a lower tax bracket. This is a great deal for investors, questionable for tax payers. Accountants promote the tax advantages of Section 42, identified as one of the top investments that can be made. That is why they are very popular, why investors keep coming back to the program, to any state with credits to give, and unfortunately to Davenport IOWA. Profit is a sure thing with minimal hassle and risk. Syndicating the process can erase the trail to who is investing. You can bet there are locals investing in tax credits for local projects. I dare say even those elected politicians who vote to support these projects. Beautiful huh?
This is a questionable deal for the tax payer. On the same 2 mil deal, after the developer takes its cut of maybe $270,000 the housing project may net around $1.5 mil. Is that good value for our tax dollars? A 75% return at best? Add to that the cost to taxpayers for operating the Section 42 program from Washington down through the state finance authorities. Payments on every deal to accountants, syndications and lawyers. Requirement at every level for formal professional opinions to protect the investor risk. Yikes, the money made by these folks assures they are investing in Section 42 too.
Let me be clear. As a tax payer I want some of my money to help those less fortunate, whether they are temporarily or forever at the bottom of our economy. That is being humane and being humane is essential to having a peaceful society. Being humane is also essential for me sleeping pretty well at night. What is at issue is how much we aren’t getting for our money. The Section 42 program is very very expensive for the tax payer. If it wasn’t so, there would be tax dollars for better housing of all kinds. Or better medical care or all the other things we need for a decent life.
The other issue is that investors drive the program. Investors go after the best deal so you have Wisconsin developers investing in Iowa and Missouri developers investing in Ohio. Most don’t give a second thought to whether Davenport IOWA needs whatever kind of housing they want to build. Don’t say market study to me – they’re nothing but creative writing projects and IFA knows it too. The money is made up front at every level of the project so it doesn’t matter except to those who live here what happens once the project is built. Davenport has abandoned discretion with the Section 42 program. To quote a lively term I’ve seen on this blog, Davenport is a tax credit whore.
Thank you for shedding some light on the subject. I have no experience with renting so I didn't know about Section 42. And you're right about it being costly, as is anything run by our government. I have noticed that trying to get figures on low income housing from any source is next to impossible.
Yeah... its free money from the government to businesses. I don't particularly like that either, but its currently how the system works.
I haven't tried to come off as defending the concept of Section 42, I'm just trying to point out that its not Section 8, which I know people really hate.
I don't know what the answer is. The liberal in me would say its cheap/free college and job training for anyone, so nobody gets stuck making minimum wage.
I guess why I tend to support PEDCOR (and only if its well managed) is because I hate to see people working full time at a crappy job living in $300 a month crap apartments where they're surrounded with criminal activities. How do you get yourself out of that situation when you're surrounded with it? Its the same reason I felt downtown might not be the best place for a halfway house. How can you learn to be a better citizen when every day you're around bad examples all the time? Mixed income is the answer, and I do wish PEDCOR was including some market rate apartments. I don't know if that's in their 2nd phase plans like it was for the West side project.
All I know is that the building I live in isn't causing all the havoc that people say Section 42 does.
9:44-Anonymous-let's be clear, your comments reflect your OPINION of the Sec. 42 program and how IFA and the federal government may administer the tax credits. It doesn't mean that your written thoughts are actually based in fact. The program in Iowa is highly regulated and competitive-your comment that market studies are fiction is not not true. They are carefully scrutinized and compared to the most recent data available in scoring the applications. Senator Grassley as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was and is, a strong proponent of the program-he is known as a strong protector of taxpayer interests. The fact is that in the last five years, Iowa finally caught on to making it work and given a fair distribution of the credits means that higher quality projects are funded. This is what attracts experienced developers from out of state to compete in Iowa and allows good Iowa developers like Chris Ales to do more.
One last note to QCI-honey, you already have an 80+ bed half-way house two blocks from where you live. DOC plans would have expanded their capacity in a new location.
Right, I know where 605 Main is.
The location they were thinking about moving to was much closer to higher crime areas such as 3rd and Western. It just seems like an odd place to reintroduce offenders to real life.
Same with with the current location, but to a lesser extent.
I have witnessed first hand that Market studies in these tax credit projects are not scrutinized or even looked at really. Don't give me that junk. They do not look at them nor care abotu if the market can sustain any more of these projects.
Just by reading the posts, I don't see anything that would change my mind about Pedcor. As I have said, I don't have much experience with renting. But if the low income rent is close to the regular rent; what's the sense of it? Or is it just a nicer neighborhood for the same rent? It does seem to be working where QCI lives. If the property is now zoned commercial, why not use it that way. I have to get busy again so hopefully I can get done before it turns colder. Everyone is bringing up some very good points, please keep up the debate.
what is the point of a comprensive plan if we don't stick to it?
That is a good point. I know the West side site went against the comprehensive plan. I wonder if the Elmore site fits it better.
Post a Comment