On the tax exemption amendment on today's ballot

[geekchick]

There are actually three state constitutional amendments on the ballot today. Other than the hateful marriage amendment, one is an easy "yes" (to remove a section that's been deemed unconstitutional) but the other took some research to figure out how I wanted to vote. The sample Democratic ballot suggests voting in favor of it, but it's not really explained very well, at least anywhere I can find.

Ballot Question Three
Shall Section 6 of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to authorize legislation to permit localities to provide a partial exemption from real property taxes for real estate with new structures and improvements in conservation, redevelopment, or rehabilitation areas?

The "conservation [...] areas" made me wonder why the Democrats were in favor of this, because the first thing that comes to mind is "new townhouses built on wetlands with a partial tax credit for the developers". In context though, that just didn't seem to make sense. A bit of poking around in the VA Code leads to this:

§ 36-3. Definitions.
[...]
"Conservation area" means an area, designated by an authority that is in a state of deterioration and in the early stages of becoming a blighted area, as defined in this section, or any area previously designated as a conservation area pursuant to this chapter.
[...]

§ 36-49.1. Adoption of Conservation Plans.

A. An authority may adopt a conservation plan for a designated conservation area to address blight and blighting conditions, to conserve such area, prevent further deterioration and prevent such area from becoming blighted, and in particular is specifically empowered to carry out any work or undertaking in the conservation area, including any or all of the following:
[...]

That makes much more sense. I do wish I hadn't had to go combing through the state code to find out that "conservation area" has a specific meaning that isn't likely the first one that comes to mind for people who aren't real estate developers.

Comments

[od-mind.livejournal.com]

I voted against it. My concern is not so much with "conservation area" (although that's a miserably misleading term for "impending slum"), but rather with "improvement". I've seen far too many bits of past real-estate law where 'improvement' meant things like "paved it over" or "built a Wal-Mart on it".

I'd rather be more restrictive than that concerning what kind of 'improvement' deserves a tax credit -- especially since I'm mostly opposed to using tax credits as under-the-counter welfare anyway. If you want to give people money to do things, you should have to write a law that gives them money to do those things, so that everyone can see what you did.

Harrumph. [steps down off soapbox]

[nminusone.livejournal.com]

I have to say it did sound a hell of a lot like "taxpayer subsidised gentrification" to me. I figured the Fairfax Democratic Commitee probably had actual lawyers look at it, though, and it seemed innocuous enough that I decided to trust their judgment.