Mike,
The Village would have the money to acquire the Arcade. They would acquire the Arcade and and then recoup the funds once they sell it to a new developer. This situation would be different than acquiring properties for the purpose of putting up a permanent publicly owned structure (like a parking garage).
Well, the total "budget" for the TIF is 20mil. Each line item can be reduced or increased as needed. But I am sure no one would want to see government bunglers owning or managing a building! With swift and proper marketing, I still think it could be sold to competent buyers (i.e., not the present owners.) But those who think it is not at risk are foolhardy; far more significant and beautiful buildings are torn down every day, month and year.
As to eminent domain in a TIF, the new Equity in Eminent Domain Act should be in the statutes by now (i.e. in a more intelligible form) and require more reading as to how it applies in a TIF district. But the prospect of a very expensive suit waged by a nonprofit public interest firm would prove discouraging, one would think.
I cannot recall where I read about the certification, but a certification is in the nature of a sworn statement. Further, any properties not identied in the final document as possible targets cannot be made targets. As to the Village's separate power of eminent domain, the new Act and the above cited litigation applies.
I think this thread my be mixing two different concepts. One is acquiring property through eminent domain and the second is acquiring property through an open-market purchase. Nothing prohibits a property owner (residential or commercial) from selling their property to the Village. If a resident thinks his or her property is worth more to the Village than it is to them, he/she can offer the property for sale. I do believe there are some restrictions from using TIF funds for the purposes of acquiring property through eminent domain. I had thought that TIF funds used to finance eminent domain could only be used for a public purpose. Perhaps soemone with more knowledge could add some flavor.
OK. thanks, corbi328. I'll drop the 328 and just call you corbi! Good distinction.
a property acquisition is not a property acquisition.
MAYBE this is a hint at a resolution to my question I had posed to the village. I wonder why the Village did not draw to me this obvious distinction yet? Maybe there are nuances? That should be the subtitle of the TIF proposal ("Maybe there are nuances?"; w/ appologies to Apocalypse Now we can say with certainty,
" 'If' is the middle word of 'TIF' ").
Maybe McKenna meant the village has to go thru the 120 day rigamarole for properties that the village *intends* to permantly retain?
In the 'thought experiment' that we are talking about now, The village is indeed ACQUIRING the Arcade, but not like it would acquire 56 Pine. In the Arcade case, they are kind of *holding* it instead of permanently keeping the property.
So here is a question:
Is the $2.8M in the TIF budget allocated for property acquisition in the *permanent sense* and not in the *holding* sense? Or is it indeed for EITHER sense of acquisition?
Since, even to acquire property in a holding sense, the village still would have to use tif funds, and would indeed *have* it until it unloads the property. As we have seen with Henninger/VC, this process could well take years! So, while the *intent* might be to *hold it*, the village would have 'acquired' it for all practical purposes.
Also, would there be a possibility that the Village purchases my property, 56 Pine, with the intent to use it as a parking lot (surface or structure; permanent property retention), but it sees what I already know: that my house as a restored sfd or as a new mfd taking full advantage of the R3 zoning (with the great views of the the river) would be worth much much more than its present use/value or a few parking slots; then seeing all this does NOT use it as a permanent parking garage and instead simply sells it to a developer?
In the end, I am not sure there is a real distinction. But I will see what the village and McKenna say, I guess.
NOTE - to anyone trying to read this: this entry is supposed to come right after corbi's 16:41:48. Catherine1's 16:49:56 and MikeS's 16:59:34 come after this entry you are reading now.
mike
As to your last, Mike, you would actually be eligible to apply for TIF funds to improve your edifice since you are not in a "blighted" district, but in a "conservation" district. As I understand it, you could, for example, apply for funds to remove the aluminum siding from your house as a restoration of it.
If the village were not thinking of using eminent domain in connection with the TIF, they would have agreed to the resolution when the question was put to them in specifically this way. A rose by any other name, in any case.
There may indeed be concept mixing here. With curiousity getting the best of me, I'll ask one other quick question:
How fixed are those line items of the proposed TIF budget?
Is $20m the only fixed number? And that number is a 23 year long number. So at any point in time....
...when does the money become available for Village's use?
ONLY when the increment is scraped?
What is the frequency or interval diversion or scraping? Every *what* years?
this kind of discussion might better be in a 'how the tif works?' thread? i dunno. that's this whole forum, I guess.
miket
I fear Mike S. is right, people are getting confused. Eminent Domain is not really an issue in the context of the Arcade discussion we have had in this thread. What I am describing is a purchase through a free market process.
To answer your question Mike T., nothing is really fixed. The $20 million is an estimate of the amount raised and the budget is an outline of how the expenditures might be made. The increment starts becoming available at the first tax payment date after the TIF is implemented. It obviously accumulates and grows over time. However, don't forget that for a situation like the one described above for the Arcade building, there is nothing that precludes the village from getting a mortgage to acquire the building. The Village would recoup the funds and pay off the mortgage when they turn around and sell the building to a new developer of their choosing.
Nobody suggested the Village would eminent domain the Arcade building, I don't think. But taking someone's house against their will for a claimed public purpose IS eminent domain.
How long will the owner continue to carry the Arcade while the Village accumulates 3 mil in "pay as you go" funds? How long will it take to accumulate 3mil?
Am I hearing in this conversation that a property that is in the housing impact study of the tif proposal (the list of properties that 'may' be displaced) are properties that are slotted for eminent domain proceedings vs 'normal' market transactions?
To clarify, in this thread, I think people were entertaining the *possibility* of the Wexford group deciding not to do the restore and the village, w/ tif funds, theoretically purchasing the Arcade. I wondered where they could get the money and we are then doing a tif primer.
Believe me, I don't understand the tif.
miket
Well Mike, as you know, it is NOT normal to oblige someone to sell against their will. If you are willing, great. But if a site is on list of possible displacements, they can acquire it, if they want it, by eminent domain if the owner refuses to sell.
But this eminent domain would be subject to any protections that may be provided by the new Act or public interest lawyers.
If we had not established this points, why did we ever discuss eminent domain?
You must log in to post.