Opinion: Boulder opportunity zone means tax breaks for the rich


According to the IRS, “Opportunity Zones are an economic development tool — that is, they are designed to spur economic development and job creation in distressed communities.” This concept was part of the 2017 Republican tax cut bill. About 8,700 census tracts have been approved as opportunity zones across the country.
Boulder’s opportunity zone was selected by the governor’s Office of Economic Development and our city government employees without consulting the City Council or the citizens. This census tract is about 2.5 square miles, and encompasses the area between 28th and 55th Streets, and from Arapahoe Road to Iris Avenue, with a notch cut out by Valmont and Airport roads. This “distressed community” includes the new Google office buildings, the 29th Street Mall and Boulder Junction. Obviously, this choice was not about helping the disadvantaged; it was about getting investors to dump yet more money into Boulder, plain and simple.(Diagonal Plaza is the only part of the opportunity zone that anyone has even argued needs help; but it is a tiny part, and the issue there is diffuse ownership, not money.)
Here’s the IRS jargon describing the financial benefits to investors: “If the investor holds the investment in the Opportunity Fund for at least ten years, the investor is eligible for an increase in basis of the QOF investment equal to its fair market value on the date that the QOF investment is sold or exchanged.” In other words, if you stay in for 10 years, you pay no 20 percent federal capital gains tax on the sale. Also, “Investors can defer tax on any prior gains invested in a Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) until the earlier of the date on which the investment in a QOF is sold or exchanged, or December 31, 2026. If the QOF investment is held for longer than 5 years, there is a 10% exclusion of the deferred gain. If held for more than 7 years, the 10% becomes 15%.” So you can also save on the capital gains tax on your previous investment.
A quick calculation shows that, properly structured, investing in an opportunity zone could multiply the return on your investment. As one developer said in the Oct. 23 Wall Street Journal, “This was a jackpot.” So investors will look for the most reliable and profitable deals, i.e. solid projects in high growth areas. This increased demand will cause property prices to shoot up even faster. And this will divert money from truly distressed communities that actually need help.
In the now old-fashioned “urban renewal” process, the local government decided if an area was “blighted,” and if so gave projects relief from incremental tax increases. But in opportunity zones, local governments have no say, so any community benefits will be accidental. The real beneficiaries in places like Boulder are those who have money to invest and then can avoid paying taxes on their profits. By the way, we’ll never know who is taking advantage of this, because the evidence is hidden in people’s tax returns; no public records exist. Also, investments must go through a “Qualified Opportunity Fund.” But the entities that create these (investment funds, big developers, etc.) are generally not interested in small investors, so the tax benefit will go to those who really don’t need them.
Opportunity zones decrease revenue to the federal government and so increase our national debt, now at the highest debt-to-GDP ratio since the end of World War II. Of course opportunity zones are not the only such scam. In June, our city government was involved with the Colorado Economic Development Commission’s approval of $2.9 million worth of state tax breaks — over $10,000 per employee — so that a German fitness equipment maker would locate in Boulder.
Approval of this absurd Boulder opportunity zone really accentuates the need to revise how much and what type of new building we allow in the opportunity zone, and what they should contribute to the community, before the whole area is over-developed, housing prices shoot up further, and traffic deadlocks.
Because we have no control over the use of the opportunity zone tax breaks, we’ll have to do some serious re-zoning and do it fast. A case in point is the recently proposed conversion of Macy’s in 29th Street to 150,000 square feet of office space, using the opportunity zone mechanism. Boulder does not need more jobs.
The city council should also require the city manager to immediately release all communications and analyses related to this totally opaque process. We citizens deserve to know how all this occurred without our being fully informed and properly included.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of the new co
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ
Read more