Talk:Tax increment financing

recent tagging
this article has far too many external links, the section headers aren't appropriate, a host of problems ninety:one 22:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the entry itself is not lengthy, the reader who may wish more information can read an academic article or an opinion piece. And since there is not one viewpoint and there are various audiences who may wish information, the variety of links provides some idea of the viewpoints and the audiences involved in TIFs. Perhaps, in an ideal world, only academics or real estate specialists are concerned about TIFs. The fact is that we do not live in an ideal world. About the heading and the entry itself, I would recommend that you print the entry, proofread and improve how the information is presented, and leave out a biased view for or against the issue. The point of links in the document or at the end is to provide detailed information that the article itself is lacking.--Chriscarlos (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory and not a collection of links. If you think that a better and more complete article can be written that contains more expository text, you are invited to write one. References that support statements in the article are easily accepted here, but mere links that are not commented upon in the text are usually not a good idea. An article that contains more than ten external links is quite unlikely to ever be selected as a featured article.

If you feel that an issue that is as complex as this can be given justice on Wikipedia, then spend a few weeks or a month writing and adding to this entry. The fact is a simple, dull entry seems to work for this issue. The external links can be useful for a person who wishes more depth and who doesn't have a alot of time to know what people think on a certain issue. For one person to determine which links stay and which links are to be deleted seems to be a very elitist brand of editing, one that seems to go against the whole reason why Wikipedia exists. If one person could do this, then why not delete the whole entry and just start from scratch to reflect only your viewpoint? I think that it is a slippery slope from one person "cleaning up" the external links to one person re-writing and "cleaning up" the whole entry. And if you want, go to the American Civil War entry and clean up their "See also" links and "External Links" (which seems like a collection of links--an unpardonable thing, Civil War or not). I think that I would like to know if the PBS website for the Burns documentary would be deleted (as it is an old documentary) or the two blogs that are featured. I have contributed to two or three entries and feel that DEPTH is needed for external links when the entry is either controversial or too complicated to summarize in a neat, unbiased series of paragraphs. If you would like to add more DEPTH to the entry itself using the some of the external links you wish to delete, be my guest. If not, perhaps you can list a series of themes that the external links can touch on, and eliminate one or two of the links in each of the present themes that don't present sufficient relevant information in relation to the proposed themes (with the participation of those who have contributed to this article). The point is that one person determining what should stay or what should be deleted seems to be lacking in collaboration and an action that is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.23.18 (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that Chriscarlos has twice reverted the removal of links by Hu12. He is an administrator who is very familiar with our policy on links, since he works at the anti-spam noticeboard. This article has been the target of spam. An anonymous editor,, has visited this article apparently trying to promote the Stone and Youngberg firm, adding links to them in several articles.


 * There is also a technical problem that the article doesn't use tags at present, but it should. Whoever has copious spare time might want to convert it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat unbalanced
I came onto this article looking for information about TIFs in Britain but everything seems to be about the U.S.A.. From the tiny amount I already know, there seem to be some differences here so this article is not very informative or helpful. I know hardly anything about TIFs beyond what I learnt in this article so I wouldn't be able to add anything but could someone please add more information about TIFs outside of America.86.149.111.2 (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammar
"TIF began in California in 1952, but the state has currently discontinued the use of them due to a couple of lawsuits.[3][4]" ---Dagme (talk) 15:20, 30 September, 2013 (UTC)

This article is unacceptable.
The article simply does not explain what Tax increment financing is. It talks around the topic but does not give a clear explanation. ---Dagme (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article does not explain what the developer gains, what the municipality gains, or how the deal is structured. Dave Blau (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Or is this the definition? Through the use of TIF, municipalities typically divert future property tax revenue increases from a defined area or district toward an economic development project or public improvement project in the community. If so, it's backward, like "Through cooking, food is placed in or on a heat source." —Tamfang (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)