So here in Columbus, as in several other cities, the ignition of downtown development has been lit by tax incentives for developers--making the increased cost of property, or renovating old buildings, or cleaning up once-toxic sites a lot more cost-effective for businesses that had ignored urban centers for a few decades.
Over the past 15 years or so, since the push to make revive Columbus' downtown began in earnest, there has been a building boom in the urban core. And though there is still a considerable way to go, our once sleepy downtown has pockets of concentrated energy, and overall has improved drastically. The residential population has soared, though it remains just a fraction of what it could become; retail, with its unique challenges, has begun to take off, as well; amenities are trickling in, as well.
But as you would imagine, even in a consistently stable and growing city like Columbus, there are many neighborhoods that struggle with chronic poverty, and the myriad issues that stem from it.
Accordingly, there has been increasing pushback against efforts to stimulate projects in the downtown area with taxpayer dollars.
I'm of course oversimplifying the complexities of this issue, but wanted to cull from you all whatever thoughts you have on finding the right balance here between using tax incentives to stimulate growth, but also being mindful of how to maximize the use of taxpayer dollars.
Caveat: One unique trait of Columbus is the great relationship that exists between business leaders, many of whom are moderate Republicans, and local elected officials, most of whom are Democrats. I say that to say this: I do not intend for this conversation to veer into the prohibited public policy conversations. But if it is deemed so at the outset, so be it.