Bloomberg Markets has a terrific investigation into how a federal program meant to spur redevelopment in poor areas is funneling taxpayer money to luxury projects and Big Finance.
David Dietz’s anecdotal lede encapsulates the story, showing that the New Markets program gave Prudential big bucks for its part in the $116 million renovation of downtown Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, a “Beaux Arts structure, built in 1910, (where) buffed marble staircases greet guests spending up to $699 a night for rooms with views of Lake Michigan.”
It’s a sweet deal for Prudential, which put $9.3 million of equity into the Blackstone and lent the project $30.4 million. The government gave it a refund of 39 percent—$15.6 million—in return.
The Treasury Department administrates the program, which is supposed to benefit areas that have a poverty rate of 20 percent or higher or a median income 20 percent below the metropolitan area. But Treasury use the individual poverty rate in a tract when the family poverty rate is often the better measure. Bloomberg Markets could have done a better job explaining how and why this is wrong.
We do learn up high that the Blackstone tract is skewed because it contains two colleges with a lot of students who show up as “poor.” But the family poverty rate in the area is less than 4 percent.
The messed-up criteria result in stats like these:
The program’s standards open up some of the nation’s wealthiest areas to development, according to Treasury records. Taxpayers have subsidized projects in tracts with median family incomes as high as $200,000, records show.
A total of $7.4 billion of the $16 billion already spent under New Markets, or 46 percent, has gone to tracts with family poverty levels ranging from zero to 19 percent, Treasury and census data show. Those communities include areas of California’s technology-rich Silicon Valley.
Excellent.
There are several good anecdotes, like this one:
In Tacoma, Washington, investors found a way to get New Markets handouts in an area with just a 1 percent family poverty rate. U.S. Bancorp and two other investors used a $34 million Treasury authorization in 2010 to finance construction of an antique car museum.
The museum, which will house the private collection of Harold E. LeMay, a deceased trash-hauling tycoon, needed creative financing to fit New Markets rules…
As a result of the deal, federal taxpayers will pick up 39 percent of the cost of erecting a $34 million shrine housing 500 of LeMay’s cars in a mostly commercial tract with a 24 percent individual poverty rate.
And you have to shake your head at this, which is an excellent catch:
Clinton regarded New Markets as a way to spur development and create jobs in communities held back by high unemployment and lagging business growth. He touted the program on a six- state tour in 1999.
“This is a good business opportunity here,” he said at a cabinet factory in Clarksdale, a Mississippi Delta town with a per capita income of $12,611. “If we can’t fully develop the Delta now, with the strongest economy, when will we get around to it?”
Clarksdale has received no benefit from the tax credit program, Treasury Department records show.
Good work.
Great. Now investigate the other 999,999 govt programs that funnel loot from the productive mass to the parasitical few.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 8 Feb 2011 at 01:52 PM
Dan A., how did you come up with that number? Why are you sure it is correct?
#2 Posted by Ron Rosenthal, CJR on Tue 8 Feb 2011 at 02:43 PM
"Dan A., how did you come up with that number?"
The same way the feds come up with theirs: I pulled it out of thin air.
"Why are you sure it is correct?"
I'm not. In fact, much like the feds' cost estimates, my number probably is a huge underestimate.
#3 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 8 Feb 2011 at 04:21 PM
Couple of important snips to identify who was responsible when:
"The Treasury controls who gets tax credits money and how the subsidies can be used.
The agency bases decisions on census tracts, which are supposed to have common economic standards. Only tracts with at least a 20 percent poverty rate or with a population earning 20 percent less than the median family income of the surrounding metropolitan area qualify for subsidized projects.
The numbers are from the 2000 census. The 2010 count hasn’t yet been used."
What's it been... 4 decades of politicians picking the best Wall Street bankers to run the treasury? Yes, on one level it makes sense to have a banker manage the people's money, BUT NOT IF THEY CAN STILL MAKE MONEY OF OF WALL STREET.
The treasury has long been captured.
"“The way the rules are written, it’s allowing a kind of cherry-picking by financial institutions to find favorable census tracts,” says Virginia Parks, a social services professor at the University of Chicago. “It’s so easy to qualify that all you need to do is hire a good demographer. It’s not rocket science.”
Scores of New Markets projects have benefited poor communities. The program has helped develop job-training centers, charter schools and housing in severely impoverished locations stretching from the Watts section of Los Angeles to Appalachia in Kentucky and other states."
The problem is the banks can game the system because the banks are given discretion over what to do with public money in, what you can paint by number data as, bad neighborhoods.
And they can do this because they are JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, not some community bank.
I would like to see the statistics on New Markets performance under community banks vs commercial. Commercial banks, I'd think, are more likely to game the system searching through national demographic data for starbucks opportunities whereas community (and possibly national) banks are more likely to invest in their communities, playing by the rules of the game instead of trying to abuse them.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 8 Feb 2011 at 07:08 PM
NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT COALITION
February 8, 2011
To the Editor:
By following the lead of Bloomberg Markets reporting on the New Markets Tax Credit, CBS News, in its report tonight, made substantial errors and missed important facts about the program. This reporting does not an accurate picture of the New Markets program.
Both CBS and Bloomberg contend that the individual poverty rate, which is one of the standards used to determine eligibility under New Markets, includes the counting of students and others in similar living situations. According to CBS and Bloomberg, use of this standard inflates the poverty rate in certain communities that would otherwise not be eligible for the program.
It is important to note that the individual poverty rate is the standard for many federal community development programs because it is a more definitive count of the number of people in a community actually living in poverty. According to the US Census Bureau, students and others living in similar circumstances are not included in the determination of the individual poverty rate for a community. In our view, this is a significant error in both reports and undermines the contention that billions of dollars have gone to communities that are really not poor but only technically eligible.
CBS and Bloomberg make much of the absence of NMTC projects in the economically distressed west side of Chicago. Yet, a Chicago-based organization is providing $12 million of NMTC allocation for an expansion of a community-based health center creating over 100 new permanent jobs within three blocks of St. Agatha’s church in the North Lawndale community on Chicago's west side.
In the period of 2003-2009, New Markets spurred some $50 billion in investments in 3,000 businesses and projects. Of that amount 90%, or $45 billion, went to communities with high distress – poverty rates above 30%, median incomes at 60% of median or below or unemployment rates at least 1.5 times the national average. Only 5% of the financing went hotels and related facilities. So the Blackstone, a hotel in a community with a poverty rate of only 26%, in terms of the project and community profile, is not typical.
With $50 billion in new investments, New Markets is a job generator. An estimated 500,000 jobs have been created or retained through New Markets investments in businesses and development projects in communities with high rates of unemployment and other factors of economic distress. While most of these are commercial and industrial facilities, community facilities, mixed use projects and business loans, a limited number are hotels and museums, which many economic development experts believe are ‘on-ramps’ to jobs for lower skill workers. Jobs are vital to rebuilding low income neighborhoods, particularly in the current economy.
There is substantial evidence that the New Markets program is working. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) the Credit is an effective incentive for spurring long term investment in low income areas. There is little question that the community facility in Southeast Washington profiled by CBS, the expansion of a factory in rural Oklahoma or the financing of an environmental remediation business in Alaska would not have happened were it not for the private sector capital generated by New Markets.
Robert Rapoza
Case studies and more key findings in the NMTC Coalition’s 10th Anniversary Report can be
found at http://nmtccoalition.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/12/NMTC‐10th‐Anniversary‐
Report‐Final.pdf.
#5 Posted by robert rapoza, CJR on Wed 9 Feb 2011 at 06:49 PM