ed051408

On the homepage

Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving Parades march on

Out There

Video

How to cook a turkey: Ask a kid

Reusse's Turkey

Who's Reusse's Turkey of the Year?

Home | Opinion Exchange | Editorials

Continued: Editorial: Why tax a business to aid its competitor?

Print this story

Follow Opinion Exchange on Twitter

COMPETING INTERESTS

"The mall claims that the subsidy is going to parking ramps and not directly to our competition. As a developer, let me assure you that all development costs are fungible. Any subsidy that goes to any part of the project is a subsidy to all parts of the project.''

Water Park of America owner Jeffrey Wirth, in a May 9 letter to the Star Tribune

More from Editorials

You've probably visited or noticed the Water Park of America along Interstate Hwy. 494 in Bloomington. If you're stuck in traffic, you can pass the time counting the number of bodies that shoot through the huge tubes that jut out from the building.

Developer Jeffrey Wirth opened Water Park of America in 2006, and his hotel and indoor park no doubt benefit from the tourists drawn to his neighbor to the east, the Mall of America. That does not mean he wants to help pay for the Phase II expansion of the megamall, which would include a competing Great Wolf Lodge hotel and water park.

That's one of the key problems with tax subsidies for individual businesses: There are clear winners and losers, and the losers typically don't have much say in things.

The Legislature this week made a wise decision not to tap the metrowide fiscal disparities pool to fund a parking ramp as part of the Phase II project. As argued here previously, that wrongheaded plan would have forced property owners throughout the metro to subsidize the expansion, creating a precedent that would have had developers scrambling to be the next in line for tax breaks.

The alternative legislation making its way through the Capitol late Tuesday wasn't any more palatable. It would allow the city of Bloomington to fund the parking structure by imposing a tax on admissions, recreation, food and beverages in a special taxing district that could include all or part of the city. State revenue bonds issued for the mall would be repaid from Bloomington's newly generated tax streams.

Limiting the tax plan to Bloomington makes more sense than tapping the fiscal disparities pool. That is, unless you're Wirth, or the owner of any other business that would end up taking the tax hit. Wirth estimates that his tax bill would increase as much as $400,000 annually. That's a big tab, especially when the benefactor is a competitor with its own water and tubes.

An interesting question is whether the Mall of America's owner, Canada-based Triple Five, actually needs $350 million in public subsidies for a parking ramp and infrastructure to secure financing for the planned $2.1 billion, 5.6-million-square-foot expansion.

The Star Tribune's Susan Feyder reported Monday that the annual net operating income for the mall was $59.4 million as of Aug. 31, 2006, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission document that revealed more about the mall's finances than we've known previously. Triple Five is privately held, and company representatives have declined to provide updated numbers. They have, however, said the public aid is essential to the expansion. Whether that's true may become clearer if the Bloomington tax plan proceeds, because it would require Triple Five to open the mall's books for state inspection.

Whatever the role of public money, market conditions -- and the availability of financing -- are key factors as well. If the Great Wolf Lodge, Bass Pro, Marriott and other prospective tenants think there is money to be made in Bloomington, and Triple Five and its lenders agree, the project will go forward.

The Phase II expansion of the megamall would benefit Bloomington, the Twin Cities and the state, not to mention the thousands of workers who would build the project and those who would get jobs in its stores, restaurants and hotels. But the project should rise or fall on its own merits, not on the backs of Bloomington's other businesses.

Recent Editorials stories

Editorial: Time to review state forfeiture laws - May 13, 2008

Editorial: Time to review state forfeiture laws - Improvements are needed after Gang Strike Force debacle. More

Comment on this story | Be the first to comment | Hide reader comments

New ideas for the public sector

THERE'S NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME to create a more efficient Minnesota. Facing large budget deficits at the state, county and local levels, Minnesotans are seeing with new clarity that the public sector must adapt to new economic realities. Only the smartest, most strategic reinvention will ensure that our tax dollars are spent on the best programs and services. Read more

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS