Aiken County's big decision

The Aiken County Council and Board of Education are getting together Tuesday for what should be a rousing and possibly decisive public hearing - at 7 p.m., in the council building at 736 Richland Ave. West in Aiken - on the pros and cons of the proposed bond deal with the FineDeering Development Group.

The controversy has been front-and-center in Aiken County for weeks.

Whatever the decision is, it will be fully discussed, and that's a good thing. Too often decisions are made in the dark with little or no public input. Not this time.

Basically, the development group is asking the local governments to pioneer new ground in tax increment financing - a program whereby taxes are frozen in a blighted metropolitan tax district, and then bonds floated to fund its redevelopment. The bonds are subsequently paid back over a dozen years or so with higher property taxes, generated in excess of the district's frozen rate, by increased values that come with redevelopment.

When TIF works right, as it usually does, taxpayers get, at no extra cost to them, an improved infrastructure and a stronger local economy. But the proposal the county council and school board must both approve if it is to move forward is more innovative and ambitious than most TIFs.

Instead of redeveloping a decaying inner-city neighborhood, the local government would partner with FineDeering to basically develop about 2,400 acres of rural land straddling Graniteville. FineDeering would put up $56.1 million to build 5,000 homes over several decades, and the county would issue $36.3 million in bonds to pay for infrastructure needs such as roads and sewers.

When the plan was first introduced earlier this year it got a friendly reception, but since then, according to County Councilman Eddie Butler, much skepticism has set in and public sentiment is running against it. Opponents are concerned, among other things, that police, fire and school services available in blighted urban areas would have to be paid for from scratch in newly developed rural areas.

According to FineDeering estimates, if the TIF succeeds, acreage now yielding $4,400 in annual tax revenues would be worth $1.15 billion and generate $14.4 million in yearly revenues - plenty to pay off the bonds with enough left over to finance new schools, more law enforcement, etc.

But critics say that's only if everything goes perfectly. Besides, if the growth potential is that good, it would happen without TIF and so, the critics say, FineDeering is trying to capture natural growth for itself.

Advocates of the plan see the FineDeering-local government linkup as a fine example of a constructive public-private partnership. Opponents see it as the local government promoting unfair competition - a taxpayer subsidy favoring one private developer over others. If this is such a great idea, critics ask, why doesn't FineDeering put up the entire $92.4 million?

Foes of the plan are also concerned that paying off the $36.3 million in bonds will be more expensive than advertised and that taxpayers will eventually be roped in.

These issues, and more, will be discussed at Tuesday's public hearing.

No TIF plan should be rejected because there's risk involved. There's no progress without risk. What's important is that the risk be fair, sensible and based on accurate data. TIF's proponents say it is; opponents say it isn't. The answer may become clear Tuesday.