Update: City OK with abatement

October 31, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
Stokley Building IndianapolisThe city has decided to support a request by Buckingham Cos. to abate part of the additional tax liability stemming from its $2.5-million renovation of the Stokely-Van Camp building at 941 N. Meridian St. The application was caught up in the transition from Mayor Bart Peterson to Mayor Greg Ballard. Officials adjusted the application to reflect the creation of 18 new jobs and the retention of 62 jobs. An earlier report on the abatement said the firm would retain 310 jobs, but that figure refers to its county-wide employee count, not just those working in the historic building. The 8-year abatement worth about $115,500 still must win approval of the Metropolitan Development Commission. "The city decided to honor its commitment in this case because it was made in the previous administration and this administration indicated support as well," spokesman John Bartholomew said in an e-mail. Scroll down for the earlier post.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • NickOctober 31, 2008 12:32 PM
    I think this is a good thing. Even with the credit crunch probably slowing progress, what Buckingham is proposing to do around that building, the job retention for the county, and the creation more than justifies the honoring of this commitment. Good for them for continuing to do the work while it was stuck in transition hell.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • MDBOctober 31, 2008 12:59 PM
    I agree with Nick. It looks like the right decision for the long term. I love the Stokely-Van Camp building. Kudos to Buckingham for being a good steward and for investing in the neighborhood. It would have been much easier to build some schlock office building in one of the surrounding counties, as some of their competitors have done.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • TaxpayerOctober 31, 2008 1:06 PM
    Does government ever say No to tax abatements?

    It would be nice for government to have a focused plan on incentives instead of handing them out like candy to everyone showing up at their door regardless of the economic impact or justified gap financing to get the deal done.

    Don't they realize the millions of taxpayer dollars spent on building the library was more important to this developer than tax abatements?

    I suspect that is why our personal property taxes are so high, our schools are underfunded, and we are still awaiting our economic boom to be realized.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • WoodyOctober 31, 2008 2:32 PM
    At an annual salary of $30k these 18 new jobs will mean a continuing investment of more than $4MM over the 8 year abatement period. On its face that is a good deal provided those wage-earners live, pay taxes, and spend money in Marion County.

    How many of those 18 jobs would have been created even without the abatement?
    Also, WHEN will the 18 jobs be created? I can't imagine Buckingham is in the process of staffing up for a big 2009.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • thundermuttOctober 31, 2008 6:52 PM
    Let's see: county income tax of 1.65% on a conservative $500K of payroll works out to about $8k/year...or close to half the abatement.

    Buckingham also spent significant money on public infrastructure (sidewalk, street trees, parking bump-out; see picture for details).

    I'd say the city is getting something of value for the property-tax abatement.

    Plus those cool blue lights at night. :-)
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • idyllic indyNovember 2, 2008 10:59 PM
    Taxpayer has it right. Will the City give a homeowner an abatement if they invest in their property, or repair the sidewalk in front of it? Of course not.

    The businesses can keep getting their abatements and the homeowners can keep watching their tax bills ascend while their level of services stagnates or decreases. But I'm sure many will tell us how it would be so much worse without the abatements. Not buying it.

    Nick, you're willing to give out abatements on this project based on some plans they have for other properties?

    MDB, if they hadn't renovated the building, could someone else not have done it?
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • thundermuttNovember 3, 2008 11:33 AM
    idyllic, don't you get an abatement for your homestead and your mortgage?
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • frankNovember 4, 2008 12:35 PM
    Abatements are available to all property owners planning to undertake improvements. They must (or at least used to be required to) show that but for the prospect of abatement, they couldn't afford to do the project.

    I agree it's an over-used perk and ought to be done away with. Often the creation of (and now retention of) jobs is a joke.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • idyllic indyNovember 5, 2008 12:49 AM
    Thunder, you got me there, except that I get the same credit or deduction that every other homeowner gets. Not a special, exclusive one based upon some specious argument that I could not otherwise afford to invest in my property, or that I would otherwise move elsewhere. A request for a tax abatement says that I'm not as good at doing what I do as someone who is paying there full property tax obligation. My opinion is that we shouldn't be rewarding businesses that aren't successful enough to compete fairly.

    If you want to make the business climate more inviting, do it evenly for everyone.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • thundermuttNovember 5, 2008 9:58 AM
    But the renter next door to you does NOT get the same credit or deduction. So you and I get a break for investing in Center Township homes, while our neighbors who rent don't.

    Buckingham moved from a rented house to one they bought. They aren't asking for anything I didn't get when I bought my house from my landlord.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. RKW's comments read like a modern "Chicken Little". As a Raintree resident for many years, "Yes, I'm ready for this." Matter of fact, I welcome The Farm because it's a development that compliments our town, brings new and desirable shopping & dining closer (specialty grocer, upscale shops, micro brew pub, etc), offers upscale condos for empty nesters who want to stay in Zionsville, is being planned and constructed by local, well-reputed firms and, of course, provides desirable non property tax benefits. We all knew the Pittman's were going to develop their property sooner than later. That one of the Pittman's will continue to live on the property helps assure The Farm will be everything promised. This also sets a standard for other developers as to the quality of future developments - which should keep an ugly Walmart at bay for decades. As we've no meglomaniac mayor, I seriously doubt Zionsville would ever aspire to over-priced statues or subsidized retail rents. And we already have a very nice public theater, the Zionsville Performing Arts Center, that meets our cultural needs quite nicely.

  2. Do we add (or subtract) these from the bounty we recieve from RTWFL, Daylight Savings Time, corporate tax giveaways, and the crack job IEDC is doing?? Or is Mike going to blame these on Mitch?

  3. Who makes Tater Tots? They would be a good sponsor, because $3 Million for the alleged "Greatest Spectacle In Racing" is taters. Tiny, tiny taters. But at least they are making up something of the losses accumulated over the years in this dying sport. Buttock in seat is certainly not doing it, nor eyeball on TV, as evidenced by the lack of both.

  4. We loved lakehouse and think the Arbor Village would be a great location. It is less than 2 miles from over 1000 rooftops in the 225,000 to over 1 million range. Many people could use the great fishers trail system to bike or walk there. Just an idea Scotty -- but maybe something closer to 3 Wiseman would good. The only microbrew in area is Ram (boring)

  5. True, it's an ESPN production, but ESPN is just another name for ABC Sports, or what used to be ABC Sports since ABC Sports no longer exists as a name. ESPN=ABC Sports= ESPN. ESPN is, according to Forbes "the world's most valuable media property" worth $40 billion. Despite that, they fired 400 people this week.

ADVERTISEMENT