Carolina Journal News Reports
CJ Series

Amendment One

Follow the John Locke Foundation and the Center for Local Innovation's Coverage of Amendment One - North Carolina's tax increment financing scheme.

(11.01.04) Those starving attorneys
Amendment One may sound like an attempt to create jobs for the unemployed in North Carolina, but its practical effect will be to create business for starving folks such as bond attorneys.

(10.22.04) Poll Shows Voters Energized in 2004
RALEIGH — North Carolinians appear to be more committed to voting this November than they have been in the past four elections, but there is no clear consensus on some issues and races, according to the Agenda 2004 poll released Thursday by the John Locke Foundation. About 85 percent of respondents said they were “extremely” likely to vote this year. The comparable number in 2000 was 70 percent. The poll found strong opposition to Amendment One, which would allow tax-increment financing in North Carolina. In political races, it showed Bush leading Kerry among state voters, Burr and Bowles statistically tied, and Easley leading Ballantine for governor.

(10.11.04) No. 789: Cleveland Gets Stiffed by TIFs
Cleveland still tops the list of impoverished cities despite its use of tax increment financing, such as Amendment One.

(10.01.04) Research Raises Questions about TIFs
CHARLOTTE—Whether tax increment financing really works as advertised is an empirical question. In recent years, several studies have examined the issue, reaching the general conclusion that TIFs as typically used produce few of the benefits claimed. Indeed, in some cases they may actually be counterproductive. One study found that Iowa’s TIF law “now has become a de facto entitlement for new industry and housing development in the state with little or no evidence of overall public benefit or meaningful discussion of the mean cost of the practice.” But supporters of Amendment One in North Carolina have been citing as part of this same study as supporting their position.

(9.29.04) Debate About Amendment One Heats Up
CHARLOTTE — When North Carolina voters head to the polls Nov. 2, they will be asked to approve a change in the state constitution that would radically alter how localities approach economic development. The proposed Amendment One would allow for the use of tax increment financing to issue public debt without a public vote. To many local government officials and developers, TIFs represent a valuable economic-development tool. To opponents — who are planning a press conference for Monday — the practice is unneeded for legitimate government services, dangerous to public control of debt, and potentially costly to taxpayers.

(9.22.04) No. 780: Try This Lesson Plan for Eminent Domain
Here's hoping voters will reject TIFs and the Supreme Court will realize how destructive TIFs are to property rights.

(9.01.04) Amendment One
Amendment One, otherwise known as Tax Increment Financing (TIFs), will be on the ballot this Fall for the voters of NC. There is a massive publicity campaign underway to ensure passage of this bad idea.
It was failed by NC voters in 1982 and 1993. Unfortunately, elected boards, EDCs, Chamber of Commerce's and others are being asked to pass resolutions selling this concept without a full understanding of what they're voting on. This page is dedicated to shedding light on what TIFs may actuatlly mean for NC.

(9.01.04) Amendment One, Freedom of Information Request
In a letter to State Treasurer Moore, William A. Franklin writes that he would like to gain an understanding of Amendment One and the manner in which it was formulated. Many important questions are asked about the structure of TIFs.

(7.26.04) Study Exposes TIFs
Mark Edelman's 2003 Study for the University of Iowa examines the consequences of using TIFs in Iowa. Many of his conclusions can be extended to their potential use in North Carolina's municipalities.

(7.14.04) No. 767: Amendment One Is Still a Bad Idea
Amendment One. It's name has been changed twice: from tax-increment financing to self-financing bonds. Even with its more innocuous title, Amendment One is still a bad idea.