Tomorrow is Election Day! DCFPI encourages all DC registered voters to vote tomorrow, if you haven’t voted by absentee ballot or used the District’s early voting option already! Polls open at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m.
Given our thoughts are focused on the election and polls today, the District’s Dime would like to call attention to two important questions that were part of the local poll recently conducted by Washington City Paper and the Kojo Nnamdi Show.
First, it was great to see that more than one-out-of-two respondents attended a neighborhood meeting in the last year! We make good decisions as a community when we are educated about the issues we face.
On to the other questions: One question asked about tax abatements.
City leaders are trying to diversify the District’s economy by attracting businesses that are not directly tied to the federal government, like technology companies. As you may know, recently the District gave the daily deal company LivingSocial a $32 million tax abatement in exchange for a promise to keep its offices downtown. I am going to read three statements. After I read them, please tell me which comes closest to summarizing your feelings on attracting and retaining businesses with tax incentives.
Respondents answered:
59%: They can be useful, but D.C. should insist on more promises from the companies that get them
18%: The subsidies are a powerful tool to attract jobs, and they should continue
13%: D.C. should not offer incentives
10%: Not sure
DCFPI counts itself among the 59% percent of DC residents who answered that abatements can be a useful economic development tool, but it is important to know why the abatement is needed. That’s why DCFPI supported the Exemptions and Abatements Information Act, which is now law. This requires abatements to come under the same financial scrutiny as TIFs, so we make sure we are incentivizing where incentive are needed.
The second question involved public funds for building a soccer stadium:
As you may know, the District paid for the more than $600 million cost of the Washington Nationals baseball stadium in 2007. Soccer team D.C. United wants a new stadium here, too. Under one possible scenario, the team would pay to construct the stadium, but would get significant incentives and investment from the local government worth tens of millions of dollars. I am going to read three statements. After I read them, please tell me which comes closest to summarizing your feelings on how the District should keep D.C. United in town.
Respondents answered:
62%: The team should pay, but the city should cover infrastructure costs
21%: The team should pay the cost, even if it has to move out of D.C.
11%: Not sure
6%: The city should pay for the stadium and all associated costs
So just what comes under the heading infrastructure costs? That’s an important thing to consider and the District’s Dime will be writing about this very soon.