1 / 14

Sarah L. Coffin, Ph.D ., AICP Saint Louis University Center for Sustainability

The Promises and Pitfalls of TIF in the St. Louis Metro: A Look at the Economic and Racial Disparities. Sarah L. Coffin, Ph.D ., AICP Saint Louis University Center for Sustainability. Distributional effects of TIF.

Download Presentation

Sarah L. Coffin, Ph.D ., AICP Saint Louis University Center for Sustainability

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Promises and Pitfalls of TIF in the St. Louis Metro: A Look at the Economic and Racial Disparities Sarah L. Coffin, Ph.D., AICP Saint Louis University Center for Sustainability

  2. Distributional effects of TIF • Report focused on distributional effects of documented summary uses of private investment. • Examined sub-regional relative racial and economic patterns related to TIF investment. • Developed a ‘distress index’

  3. Project scope and methods • Data sources and limitations • Differences between IL and MO • TIF typology • Distress Index • Property indicators: % renters, % vacant units, % units built prior to 1950 • SES indicators: % HH earning < ½ metro median income, % pop 25+ years over with < high school education, % unemployed, % female headed households

  4. TIF Typology

  5. TIF Municipal Findings • Municipal Racial and Economic Disparity at time of 1st TIF project: • 22% mod to very high concentrations of non-white persons • 34% mod to very high concentrations of white persons • 37% mod to very high concentrations of low-income households • 35% moderate to very low concentrations of low-income hhlds

  6. TIF Project Findings • For all 347 TIF projects 1985-2011: • 47% were approved by municipalities characterized by moderate to very high concentrations of non-white persons • 16% with moderate to very high concentrations of white persons • 21% with low to very low concentrations of low-income households • 63% with high to very high concentrations of low-income households

  7. TIF Block Group Findings • At the time the TIF was approved: • 28.96% of the block groups had a low to very low relative proportion of poor households to the regional mean • 27.27% were near the regional mean in proportion of poor households • 43.77% had a high to very high proportion of poor households relative to the regional mean • 28.96% had a high to very high non White population relative to the regional mean • 42.42% were near the regional mean in proportion of non White population • 28.62% had a high to very high White population relative to the regional mean

  8. Economic Separation by Municipality

  9. Racial Separation by Municipality

  10. TIF Distress Index • Municipal Distress attime of 1st TIF project : • 37% were moderate to very stable • 35% were moderate to very distressed • 40% showed an overall decrease in neighborhood distress between 1990 and 2011 • 60% showed an overall increase in neighborhood distress between 1990 and 2011.

  11. TIF Distress Index • For all 347 TIF projects 1985-2011: • 18% were approved by municipalities characterized by moderate to very high stability relative to neighborhood distress. • 66% were approved by municipalities characterized by moderate to very high neighborhood distress • 22% of the TIF projects were approved by municipalities that showed an overall decrease in neighborhood distress between 1990 and 2011 • 78% of the TIF projects were approved by municipalities that showed an overall increase in neighborhood distress between 1990 and 2011

  12. TIF Distress Index • At the time the TIF was approved: • 26.26% of the block groups had low to very low distress compared to the regional mean. • 28.96% of the block groups were near the regional mean relative to neighborhood distress. • 44.78% of the block groups had moderate to very high distress compared to the regional mean.

  13. Neighborhood Distress by Municipality

  14. Conclusions • Wealthier communities initially use TIF to preempt distress • TIF can be used creatively in distressed urban core areas • Broader capital improvement planning will support TIF investment

More Related