The authors analyze the effects of property tax abatement on the property tax base and rates of school districts within a municipality offering the abatement using data from Franklin County, Ohio, one of the most populous counties in the United States. An increase in a school district’s Community Reinvestment Area abatement intensity correlates with (a) a decrease in the mill rate for real property, (b) a decrease in effective residential and nonresidential property tax rates, and (c) an increase in total market value of property. While these effects are small, they indicate that a municipality’s decision to abate has generated enough growth in property values, either through improvements to physical property or positive capitalization for existing property values, to offset the negative effects of an abatement. The reason for this may be that the restrictions and oversight used in this abatement program are greater than in most other places.
AndersonJ. E.WassmerR. W. (2000). Bidding for business: The efficacy of local economic development incentives in a metropolitan area. W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. https://doi.org/10.17848/9780585313610
2.
BartikT. J.ErickcekG. A. (2014). Simulating the effects of Michigan’s MEGA tax credit program on job creation and fiscal benefits. Economic Development Quarterly, 28(4), 314-327. https://doi.org/10.17848/9780585313610
3.
BartikT. J. (2018). “But for” percentage for economic development incentives: What percentage estimates are plausible based on the research literature? (Upjohn Institute Working Paper No. 18-289). W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. https://doi.org/10.17848/9780585313610
4.
BartikT. J. (2017). A new panel database on business incentives for economic development offered by state and local governments in the United States. Prepared for the Pew Charitable Trust. https://research.upjohn.org/reports/225/
5.
BruecknerJ. K.RosenthalS. S. (2009). Gentrification and neighborhood housing cycles: Will America’s future downtowns be rich?Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(4), 725-743. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.91.4.725
6.
CameronA. C.TrivediP. K. (2010). Microeconometrics using STATA (Rev. ed.). STATA Press.
DalehiteE. G.MikesellJ. L.ZornC. K. (2005). Variations in property tax abatement programs among states. Economic Development Quarterly, 19(2), 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242404272352
FaulkD. (2002). Do state economic development incentives create jobs? An analysis of state employment tax credits. National Tax Journal, 55(2), 263-280. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2002.2.04
GreenbaumR. T.RussellB. D.PetrasT. L. (2010). Measuring the distribution of economic development tax incentive intensity. Economic Development Quarterly, 24(2), 154-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242409358323
14.
HallJ. C. (2013). Does school district and municipality border congruence matter? A spatial hedonic approach (Working Paper No. 13-02). West Virginia University, Department of Economics.
15.
HansonA. (2009). Local employment, poverty, and property value effects of geographically-targeted tax incentives: An instrumental variables approach. Regional Science & Urban Economics, 39(6), 721-731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2009.07.002
16.
HicksM.FaulkD. (2016). The fiscal impact of local property tax abatement in Indiana. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 2(2), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.2.2.161-173
17.
HoechleD. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross sectional dependence. The STATA Journal, 7(3), 281-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0700700301
18.
HultquistA. (2014). An evaluation of geographically targeted economic development programs in Ohio. Journal of Urban Affairs, 37(2), 207-223. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12096
19.
KangS. H.ReeseL.SkidmoreM. (2016). Do industrial tax abatements spur property value growth?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(2), 388-414. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21862
MerrimanD. (2018). Improving tax increment financing (TIF) for economic development. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
26.
National Education Association. (2003). Protecting public education from tax giveaways to corporations (NEA Research Working Paper). National Education Association.
27.
Nguyen-HoangN. (2014). Tax increment financing and education expenditures: The case of Iowa. Education Finance and Policy, 9(4), 515-540.
28.
Ohio Development Services Agency. (2012). Ohio Community Reinvestment Area program—Summary. State of Ohio.
SullivanM.SobulM. (2010). Property taxation and school funding (Tax Research Series, No. 1). Ohio Department of Taxation.
32.
TarczynskaK. (2017). Show us the local subsidies: A second evaluation of city and county online disclosure practices of economic development subsidy programs. Good Jobs First.
33.
WassmerR. (2009). Property tax abatement as a means of promoting state and local economic activity in the United States. In AugustineN.BellM.BrunoriD.YoungmanJ. (Eds.), Erosion of the property tax base: Trends, causes, and consequences (pp. 221-259). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
