Reasons Why the State Should Reject the Route 100 TIF

This TIF fails to conform to the spirit, purpose, and specific terms of the enabling statute and associated DECD Rules, and also runs counter to the expressed will of the town’s electorate. These objections are discussed further as follows:  

- This new TIF fails to conform with any of the “Conditions of Approval” set forth in the enabling statute, given that the area it addresses is, like the town as a whole, already prosperous, growing rapidly and not in need of state subsidy to continue these conditions.  Specifically, there is no blight, and no need of rehabilitation, redevelopment, or restorative conservation projects. There is no “art district” envisioned here. While there is area “suitable for commercial use,” such use is unfolding naturally, is in no need of a TIF to promote and subsidize it, and the proposed TIF itself does not identify commercial uses as in need of incentives or remedy.  

- By law, TIFs are meant to promote, facilitate, and subsidize growth, which is not only unneeded in this case, but also runs counter to the expressed wishes of a majority Falmouth’s electorate as expressed at numerous public forums over the past three years, including a Vision and Values Survey conducted last year.  By that survey, Falmouth residents, at a ratio of 23 to 1, regard the town’s growth trajectory to be excessive, especially the residential component, and want growth to be managed, not further promoted.

- Being aware of the residents’ sentiments about growth, the Town’s staff has prepared a list of potential TIF projects that it argues are not growth-promoting.  Not only is this characterization substantially untrue, but the argument itself undermines statutory justification for the TIF. 

- Although a TIF’s subsidy effects are attractive, Falmouth residents have shown that they do not want a subsidy that promotes the opposite of what they want for their town.  

- Many Falmouth residents deplore the conflict of interest and bias that results from Town Staff salaries being fully or substantially funded from TIFs.  Especially galling is that the salary of the planning staffer who is most responsible for this TIF (Theo Holtwijk) is 100% funded by TIF money. This use of TIF funds encourages not only a pro-growth bias, but also staffing bloat relating to the planning function. 

- From a statewide perspective, subsidizing the growth of an already fast-growing town is unfair to statewide taxpayers, especially to towns that are actually in need of rehabilitative growth as sought by the TIF statute. 

- The properties comprising this TIF are mostly high-end residences, 97 altogether, mostly selling for as much as $700,000, which of itself is not in keeping with the purpose of TIFs. 

- Many Falmouth residents are appalled that the TIF Application seeks to establish the “original assessed value” of this TIF to be the valuation that was in place before said residential construction began in 2020.  If that is allowed, these many new homes will henceforth contribute almost nothing to meet the cost of schools, public works, police, fire & rescue, administration, or other regular Town services, and this outrage will continue for thirty years.

- As an indicator of how the residents feel about this TIF, it is highly significant that no one from the public spoke out in favor of it, either personally or virtually, at the public hearing on March 14. 

- In violation of DECD Rules, the complete Development Program of an original or amended TIF application, including all exhibits, was not available to the public on the date of publication of the Notice of the Public Hearing, nor was it available when the TIF was approved by the Town Council. As of March 23, it was still not complete. 

- Finally, the Application for this Route 100 TIF has not been submitted on time.  DECD Rule 19-100, Section 2 (C) specifies unequivocally that it should have been submitted by March 1, unless the Commissioner granted an extension to no later than March 31.  There is no record of any such extension being granted.  There are no grounds for leniency in this deliberate or grossly careless violation of DECD rules.