Shorewood TIF Financing for Mandel Project — Is It Legal ?

The Shorewood Community Development Agency (CDA) has proposed an expansion of the current TIF (Tax Incremental Financing), in order to provided financing to the developer (Mandel) in an amount somewhere between $8,725,000 and $10,000,000.

BUT IS IT LEGAL?

The First Criteria the Shorewood CDA has used to justify a TIF is that the property is blighted, deteriorated or a slum, to meet the State Regulations for using TIF Money.

 That would to be in compliance with state law as follows:

 66.1337 (2) FINDINGS. It is found and declared that there exists in municipalities of the state slum, blighted and deteriorated areas which constitute a serious and growing menace injurious to the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the residents of the state.

IS THE EXISTING PROPERTY BLIGHTED OR A SLUM?  YOU DECIDE!

 The  “BUT FOR” Test

According to the WI Dept of Revenue:

For Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) to benefit municipalities as it is supposed to, developments that get TIF assistance must meet a standard called the “but for” test. The name comes from the expression, “The development would not occur but for the use of TIF.” To say this means that the proposed development would not happen if the financial support available from TIF was not used.

WE NOW NEED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAPPEN IF PUBLIC FUNDING WAS NOT PROVIDED BY SHOREWOOD.

From all evidence I have seen and heard, this project FAILS the “But For” Test.

 It has been known for several years now, that this development was being planned:

1)  Roundy’s which owns Pick n Save, owns the entire block on which the current Pick n Save is located, and INCLUDES the entire building which houses Walgreens and the former Schwartz’s Book Store.

2) After Schwartz closed, Open Book, a co-op, tried to make a go of a co-op bookstore in that space that Schwartz had. 

3) Pick n Save the Landlord of the space, according to information from the Co-op Board, would not negotiate a long term lease agreement, as Pick n Save is planning an expansion of the Shorewood store, as it deems it too small. 

4) Our public officials know that Pick n Save has been planning this for some time.  The ultimate plan is to raze the Walgreen’s building, build the new Pick n Save there, and then raze the current Pick n Save building, and put up a parking structure.

THIS HAS NOT BEEN A SECRET!!!  It has been well known in the village, that Walgreens had to move --- and where more likely to move, than across the street to an open parking lot??

WHAT DO YOU THINK

DOES THIS PUBLIC FINANCING MEET THE STATE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS?

IS THE PROPERTY A SHOREWOOD SLUM? 

WOULD THE DEVELOPMENT HAPPEN WITHOUT CORPORATE WELFARE?

In my next posting, I will examine other possible reasons for Shorewood financing this project, and whether the project meets those criteria.