/
The Future of Real Estate Tax Incentives The Future of Real Estate Tax Incentives

The Future of Real Estate Tax Incentives - PowerPoint Presentation

tawny-fly
tawny-fly . @tawny-fly
Follow
388 views
Uploaded On 2016-05-11

The Future of Real Estate Tax Incentives - PPT Presentation

A Discussion Tax Incentive Programs Original Intent Encourage needed upgrades for existing housing Reduce operating costs for highly subsidized projects Stimulate needed residential construction and related economic activity ID: 314793

construction tax incentive affordability tax construction affordability incentive 2011 encouraging needed programs expenditures costs incentives program 421 rehab highly

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "The Future of Real Estate Tax Incentives" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

The Future of Real Estate Tax Incentives

A DiscussionSlide2

Tax Incentive Programs

Original IntentSlide3

Encourage needed upgrades for existing housingReduce operating costs for highly subsidized projects

Stimulate needed residential construction and related economic activityHold city expenditures to the minimum needed to reach these objectives

Objectives of Tax Incentives?Slide4

1950’s

Encourage needed upgrades for existing housing

J-51Slide5

1960’s

Reduce operating costs for highly subsidized projects

Article XISlide6

1970’sStimulate needed residential construction and related economic activity

421-aSlide7

1990’s

Reduce operating costs for highly subsidized LIHTC projects

420-cSlide8

Other CitiesSlide9

Many places have PILOT programsDC, Philadelphia, Seattle, Cincinnati have as of right programs

May cap total amount awardable in a yearMay require affordability

Usually 8-10 year abatement periodSome programs are highly targeted (e.g. SRO program in DC)

New ConstructionSlide10

Usually require a threshold investmentMay require affordability component

Seattle – 20% of units “affordable”

RehabSlide11

Tax Incentive Programs

The ContextSlide12

NYC Tax Revenue by Type 2011

(in millions)Slide13

Annual RE Tax Incentive Expenditures 2011

(in millions)

Source: Annual Report on Tax Expenditures Fiscal Year 2011Slide14

2011 Tax Expenditures and Units By Program

Units with Tax Exemptions

Annual Dollar Costs of Exemptions (in millions)

Source: Annual Report on Tax Expenditures Fiscal Year 2011 and DOF Data on J-51Slide15
Slide16

Monthly Expenses per Stabilized Unit - 2009

Source: RGB 2011 Income and Expense StudySlide17

The IssuesSlide18

Talked to 28 industry and government leaders about,

Objectives and effectiveness of programsAdministration of programsPractical issues

SurveySlide19

Many old tax incentive programs designed to take advantage of different state and federal programs

Article 2 for Mitchell LamaArticle 5 for federal programsArticle 4

Article 16/UDAAPThese are not growing and slowly fading out

Old Tax Incentives Slide20

Is this still a valid objective?New variations

Energy efficiencyPreserving at risk buildingsPreserving affordability

Encouraging RehabSlide21

J-51Is it too complicated?

Processing takes too longApproval amount subject to too much variation

Does the Roberts decision make this program more “efficient” going forwardEncouraging RehabSlide22

J-51Is the term long enough?

Promoting RehabSlide23

Is this a valid objective of public policy?Does the incentive generate construction that would not otherwise occur?

Encouraging For Profit New ConstructionSlide24

421-aPanelists said current tax rates are a significant barrier to new construction.

Could a reformed tax policy for new rental housing achieve the same objective more efficiently?

Encouraging For Profit New ConstructionSlide25

421-aDoes the economic value of the incentive go to the seller of the land or to the project?

How can we insure it goes to the project?

Encouraging New ConstructionSlide26

Should the 421-a link to rent stabilization continue?

Does the Roberts decision make these programs more “efficient” going forward?

Encouraging For Profit New ConstructionSlide27

In general, do the tax incentives match the term of affordability restrictions of the projects?

Promoting AffordabilitySlide28

Article 11/ 420cGenerally seems to be working

Possible changesShould one program go the Council and the other be as of right?Could Article 11 extensions be approved without Council approval?

Promoting AffordabilitySlide29

Are there new priorities that should be brought into the tax incentive process?

Over Mortgaged buildingsTPT projectsPreserving former Section 8 and Mitchell Lama projects

Energy efficiencyPreserving affordability

Promoting Affordability