Labor issues must be a major consideration when issuing tax abatements

by: Thomas Morgan

Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 15:22:41 PM EDT

Many of us who live in our near Lansing have been tuned in to the controversial proposed deal to give developer Pat Gillespie millions of dollars in tax abatements to tear down the historic Lansing City Market along the Grand River and replace it with high-end condos and a newer, smaller City Market.

This issue has raised quite a bit of a stir, as the deal is opposed by many labor groups and historic preservationists. The giveaway is supported by the Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce and developers.

In many ways, the City Market deal represents a larger issue, both in Michigan and throughout the nation. Should cities and the state give away huge chunks of money to private developers and firms with very few strings attached, particularly when it comes to labor issues? Shouldn't tax abatements have more strings attached to ensure economic investments stay within the community?

I wrote a column in today's (Lansing) City Pulse addressing the City Market issue, which is scheduled to be voted on by the Lansing City Council on Monday.

From the Lansing City Pulse:

The controversial City Market redevelopment plan before the Lansing City Council has far too many variables for the city to yet again hand over millions of dollars in tax breaks to a private developer.

The City Council would be wise to reject this proposal and take a much closer look at how it handles tax abatements in the future.

Tax abatements should have stringent strings attached, particularly when it comes to labor. Any project supported by the taxpayers of Lansing should carry with it prevailing wage provisions to ensure that local workers are paid fairly and can provide for their families.

It’s basic common sense: If Lansing taxpayers are footing the bill for a project, Lansing workers should have the opportunity to build it and get good wages.