SC Policy Council defends public school funding from an ill-considered tax break

Yeah, I thought maybe that would grab your attention. Man bites dog, hell freezes over, Policy Council chooses public schools over tax break.

Here’s the link:

Sembler Giveaway: School Money to be Siphoned

Written By: Rick Brundrett

The Nerve

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

An S.C. Senate bill that would give sales tax rebates to the developer of a proposed Jasper County mega-mall relies on a state law that designates those revenues for school purposes, a review by The Nerve has found.

Under the bill (S. 1054), sponsored by Sen. Clementa Pinckney, D-Jasper, three-fourths of eligible sales tax revenue generated by the proposed Okatie Crossings mall would be refunded to the county, which, in turn, could be returned to Florida-based Sembler Co., the mall’s developer. The amount of estimated incentives, according to several lawmakers, ranges from about $134 million to nearly $175 million.

But The Nerve’s review of the bill found that the proposed refunds might contravene a state law that designates most of the state’s sales tax for school building projects….

Nice work there, Rick.

2 thoughts on “SC Policy Council defends public school funding from an ill-considered tax break

  1. Mark Stewart

    It’s amazing – or hardly surprising, depending – that the idea of tax incentives for specific retail development is still open for consideration in the legislature. Neither Bass Pro Shops nor the Sembler Co. deserves these incentives – unless all retailers are going to receive the same preferencial treatment; in wich case the state might as well just repeal the sales tax entirely.

    Reply
  2. Kathryn Fenner

    Rick is our Bob Woodward, no?

    I appreciated his work ever since he nailed Henry McMaster on his slumlord tendencies. Henry has since cleaned up his act in our neighborhood considerably, although he is fighting a city law limiting occupancy of dwelling units (pack ’em in–who cares if there’s parking for ’em–you can make so much more $$ per tenant). Tha law he’s fighting is constitutional per the US Supremes, twice over, but why let that stop Henry from wasting our tax dollars fighting his appeal and, if he wins, making a mockery of “impartial” justice.

    Yet again…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *