The Uselessness of Economic Development Incentives, The Atlantic Cities, December 7, 2012

By Richard Florida

This week, the New York Times ran an important series of articles on state and local incentives to business. The reporting was terrific, but even better is the data set the Times put together on the scale and scope of these incentives. The paper points out that its reporters spent some 10 months compiling data from states, cities, and counties.

All told, states, cities, and counties give away some $80 billion to companies each year, including both expenditures and tax abatements, according to the Times' estimates. . . .

. . .  Our biggest takeaway: there is virtually no association between economic development incentives and any measure of economic performance.   (Emphasis added.) We found no statistically significant association between economic development incentives per capita and average wages or incomes; none between incentives and college grads or knowledge workers; and none between incentives and the state unemployment rate. . . .

. . .  The broad body of evidence on incentives, including the Times series, finds that incentives do not actually cause companies to choose certain locations over others. Rather, companies typically select locations based on factors such as workforce, proximity to markets, and access to qualified suppliers, and then pit jurisdictions against one another to extract tax benefits and other incentives.  . . .

Click here to read the rest of this article.  

Maybe Virginia and Fairfax County should be putting more taxpayer money into education and transportation than in to the pockets of corporations that would probably come here anyway.  If this article and the research behind it have merit, those investments of taxes would have a greater payoff in terms of greater economic growth.

Comments Concerning Town Center Plan Proposals, Dave Edwards, November 19, 2010

Comments Concerning Reston Town Center Plan Proposals -- Dave Edwards

Presentation for Discussion of Reston 2020 Second Draft Alternative Vision for Reston Town Center, November 16, 2010

Discussion of Draft Reston 2020 AV--11!16!10

Second Draft: Reston 2020 Alternative Vision for Reston Town Center, November 15, 2020

This draft report will be discussed at this evening's Reston 2020 Committee, and approved as amended.  All Restonians are welcome to attend and participate in the meeting.  The meeting will be at 7:30PM at Reston Community Center, Lake Anne.

Reston Town Center TOD Area Development--D2

Notes on RTF Town Center Committee Meeting, September 21, 2020, Dick Rogers

Process: The Committee will meet at least one more time on 28 September to complete the draft.  Robert Goudie, Co-Chair, hopes to get it around to the Task Force prior to the scheduled 12 October presentation.

 

Maynard comments: I called these to the attention of the Committee.   A few had read them.  They were dismissed as inaccurate and disconnected from what the Committee was trying to achieve.  Some thought the tone was personally  offensive.  One member later cautioned me that at times tone of some 2020 comments was counterproductive.

 

Town Center office Building: The reps were back and again tried to get the Committee to address their property, which is lost amid the Spectrum development. They apparently want blessing for a denser, Spectrum compatible mixed-use redevelopment.

 

Incentives for residential development.  An extensive discussion took place on Mark Looney's proposals of how costs could be reduced to encourage "pioneering" development of residential areas on the Southside. Mark has proposed loosening requirements on parking, work force housing as well as not requiring proffers for schools, parks or public facilities for some initial developers.  There was vigorous pro and con discussion with some of the politically sensitive issues (work force housing) meriting particular controversy.  Eventually some compromise wording was introduced to allow for the possibility of such incentives in certain circumstances. (Comment: I am in the 2020 minority in thinking this proposal should be considered seriously.  The existing property owners are mostly commercial developers who in my view are of scared of the implications of residential--having to co-partner with others, for example, means giving up $. Fathomer, tenants are going to be hard to lure to an area with limited amenities initially. However, it is unclear what the limits of any relaxation would be--discussion has ranged from the initial development and a specific number of units to periods as long as 7 years).

 

    Roads: The character of surrounding roads was discussed.  The consensus seemed to be that Baron Cameron, Reston Parkway and Sunrise Valley should be kept as conveyor streets (some suggested "urban conveyors")--that while more pedestrian friendly, they would not have parking.  Interior streets could be viewed as more urban in character.  (Comment: This would appear to make Sunrise Valley not compatible with what is being proposed on either side.)

 

    Draft: The Committee began a page-by-page view review of the draft. Some issues:

•  Will try to clarify what is viewed as "functional" open space in the way of sidewalks
•  Extended discussion of how to get owners on the south side to contribute to a central green.    Decision made to consult Heidi M on wording.
• Residential collar: wording will be qualified to accommodate diverse uses such as the Hospital area.
• INOVA rep was worried that wording might tie them down to 2,000 residential units. Wants more flexibility, apparently to avoid impeding commercial development.

    Governance: Robert Goudie cited view of RTCA residents that NTC should be in RTCA. Concern was that FCPA would not maintain any common ground and that this should be RTCA responsibility. No discussion of an RA role.

Notes on RTF Wiehle Committee Meeting, September 22, 2010, John Lovaas

The committee was missing Mark Looney and Mike Corrigan. Others present.

Target for the day was to review, edit latest Committee report draft in preparation for presentation to the full Reston Task Force on Tuesday, September 28.

In brief public comment, it was noted that objectives section of report listed many worthy actions, but lacked a sense of priorities, most urgent among them. The drafter/s of the report were commended for positive use of incentives above delineated list of standard requirements for developer projects. That is, incentives are proposed for positive, vision furthering actions, not giving up valued community goods such as schools, affordable housing to get developers to build at all.

Draft Report Comments/Changes:

-Multiple ped/bike crossings along Sunset Hills discussed. Paragraph needed to provide rationale for them (i.e., to change character of Sunset Hills to slower urban street, obviate need for safe but some say under-used overpasses). Leave flexibility for grade separated connections, e.g., W & OD on Wiehle.

-Paul Thomas repeated suggestion to include rec center as a possibility for Isaac Newton Square or larger G-7 landbay to east. Developer Raj noted he and another developer considering joining forces to do a rec center near ice rink, Michael Faraday area.

-Long discussion of open space requirement—whether it should be 20 or 25% when defined as publicly accessible (as opposed to private land with use restricted!). They settled on a recommendation for publicly accessible open space in the 20-25% area range.

-Andy VanHorn suggested changing language stating “…Town Center Metro North will contemplate the highest overall levels of development in Reston.” He wanted to include reference to proposed Wiehle east-west “spine” as being close to that. He did not attract a lot of interest and dropped the matter.

-Developer observer (Mike ?) objected to language in para 5. under Office:Residential ratios “New office development should not proceed without concurrent residential development or, at least, in the absence of early construction of infrastructure and enforceable phasing plans to assure desireable mix of uses will be achieved…” He argued that only market god rules this, and county could not enforce such a provision. Bill Penniman pointed out the “or …” clause which he seemed to have overlooked. Andy Van Horn and one other developer jumped in, agreeing with objection.

When Bill Penniman put it to a vote, all three developers voted to delete the paragraph altogether. Only one civilian supported Penniman. Paul Thomas and Judith Pew abstained, thus killing any assurance that residential will be accomplished early—or at all, as 20 years of experience in Town Center suggests.

-Bill Penniman postponed consideration of desired ratios of office to residential GFA, initially to return to after landbay by landbay discussion, then to a future meeting. BPenniman suggested following landbay ratios office to residential: G-3 40:60; G-4 60:40; G-5 40-60; G-6 30-70. To be discussed at next meeting, October 13!

-Under standard development requirements for rezoning, developer promptly suggested weakening “workforce/affordable housing per Fairfax standards”, or leaving option of some financial contribution. Several observers objected—noting this TOD area precisely where workforce housing needed—rather than pushing this income group further from the station and increasing the cost of commute. Comstock rep noted they had proferred to do 19.5% workforce housing rather than County mandated minimum of 12%, and in addition, made contribution to county affordable housing fund! There will be a recommendation for incentives for more workforce/affordable housing either on-site or via contributions to a Comstock-style, county-administered fund.

Comment: Watching this process at the Reston Parkway subcommittee and now at Wiehle is very discouraging if you believe in either Reston founding principles or county policy or if you have a sense of value in a social good such as affordable housing.

Landbay by Landbay changes—few!

-Sudden consensus that green spaces large enough for active recreation such as ball or soccer fields not possible due to lack of adequate land [Comment: questionable at least at ½ mile and beyond]. Like Town Center, Wiehle growth will generate demand for additional fields, but group argues that space should be found elsewhere. It's hard to find soccer/baseball sized field areas in the RCIG given current development and the area's physical constraints. It needs to be looked at from a larger perspective. Comment: Surely, somewhere in the RCIG there is space for athletic fields. Hopefully, the full Task Force will pick up the ball dropped here.

-Group agreed to add language to limit more McDonald’s (or banks??!) type of problems by recommending limit to “auto-oriented uses” [drive-throughs!].

Closing- Bill Penniman proposed again postponing discussion of F.A.R.s.   (Task Force Chair Patti Nicoson reminded him they would have to deal with it soon.). Presumably will be discussed at next Wiehle Subcommittee meeting, October 20 or 27.

Someone noted that TC Committee had addressed issue of dog walk/poo areas, but Wiehle has not. Resolved by agreement to leave as offsite amenity. That is, take your dog over to Town Center as needed.

         

Comment on the September 18 Draft RTF Town Center Committee Draft Report, September 20, Terry Maynard

The following is my response to the subject draft report.  It is the text of an e-mail I sent to Mr. Goudie, the Reston Task Force, and the Reston 2020 community.  The views expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect the view of any Reston organization.   Terry Maynard

Comment on the 9-18-10 Draft Reston Town Center Committee report

Notes on Wiehle Station Committee Meeting, August 11, 2010, John Lovaas

Members attending: Bill Penniman and Andy Van Horn, Co-Chairs; DGill, DKennedy, AMurphy, JPew, Paul Thomas

About 20 observers—4 from host RA, the rest split developers and residents.

Briefing on terms—By Right and Zoning, Faheem Darab of DPZ.

Faheem clarified meaning of “by-right” zoning, which in the case of Wiehle (and RCIG?) meant the maximum F.A.R., building heights and open space that land owner is entitled without having to go through rezoning or any public hearings if new development proposal is within those limits. At Wiehle, there is also provision for higher F.A. R.s and building heights when rail comes.

This led to lively discussion of the obvious need to rezone what is basically all currently industrial at Wiehle. Committee, showing signs of exhaustion, wondered if this isn’t for the full TF or some other body—not them to address? Faheem suggested that it would help the county and the process if they made recommendations. What then should be the designation, one of the planned P zoning categories—PDH, PDC, PRM, or what most of Reston was created to be, PRC (Planned Residential Community). Back and forth, but weight in discussion tilted toward PRC, but it was left for future discussion and no conclusions were reached.

Discussion: Form and mix of development in Wiehle TOD

The co-chairs distributed respective handouts for discussion. Bill Penniman handed out a piece titled “Overview of DRAFT Wiehle Station Recommendations, consisting of a summary of “Principal Themes and Objectives” which includes some fuzzy guidance using terms like “in general”, “generally” and “reasonable” where definition will vary by user.

It then goes into suggested mixes and non-numerical F.A.R.s ranging from greatest density (F.A.R. A) to reduced density, level E. Bill also handed out 3 maps—one overlaid with a possible (strawman?) street grid which sent Heidi into a mini-panic—“OK for folks in this room, but probably not a good idea on the street” (the unworthy ones!), where it will no doubt be assumed to be the final and thus misused. How about labeling it strawman, I asked. Most seemed to think the map indeed was useful whether or not it went into final Comprehensive Plan. There was a parks overlay suggesting lots of small, middle size parks and two large athletic fields, and a third showing proposed higher density delineated areas at different radiuses from the station.

Co-chair Van Horn handed out his latest version of “Incentive Structures” by land bay, ordered from By-Right column to TOD Baseline FAR to Above Baseline FAR, the latter two listing what he thought were appropriate incentives at each level. Several folks objected to his inclusion of screened Structured parking as an Above Baseline Incentive for greater FAR. You have to see it to understand it, so I hope it is attached.

The discussion had barely begun on these documents when time ran out. They will be the subjects of next week’s meeting which should be a substantive and important one.

Notetaker: John Lovaas 8/11

JBG Proposal and Committee Chair Response for Development at Wiehle Station, July 30, 2010

JBG Wiehle Station Area Character Overview 7-29

JBG Draft Rec and Report Handout to Wiehle Avenue Committee 07-28

Comments on JBG Wiehle Station Area Proposal--WPenniman