TIF Deep Dive: The $211 Million Question
Understanding the Tax Increment Financing portion of the Plaza deal—and why it may not survive legal scrutiny
TIF (This Page)
Tax Increment Financing via TIF Commission
- • $110M in sales/earnings tax capture
- • 23-year max (RSMo 99.810)
- • Already approved by TIF Commission
- • Awaiting City Council vote
Port KC PILOT (Separate)
Property tax freeze via Port Authority
- • $309M property tax freeze
- • 30-year term (different authority)
- • Vote delayed to January 2026
- • This is what diverts $188M from KCPS
Combined with $100M city pledge = $520M+ total subsidy package
What is TIF?
Tax Increment Financing 101
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) allows cities to redirect future tax revenue from a development area to pay for infrastructure and other project costs. The theory: the project creates new tax revenue that wouldn't exist otherwise.
EATS = Economic Activity Taxes
This includes sales taxes and earnings taxes generated within the TIF district.
Missouri's Unique Problem
Missouri is 1 of only 9 states that allows TIF to capture Economic Activity Taxes (EATS)—not just property taxes.
This means sales taxes you pay at Plaza stores and earnings taxes from Plaza workers can be diverted directly to the developer for decades.
Normal TIF Capture
50%
Standard EATS capture rate in Missouri
Plaza "Super TIF"
100%
Every dollar of EATS goes to the developer
The "But For" Test Fraud
The Legal Requirement (RSMo 99.810)
Missouri law requires that a TIF area "would not reasonably be anticipated to be developed without adoption of tax increment financing."
Translation: The developer must prove the project cannot happen without public subsidies. This is supposed to be the primary safeguard against corporate welfare.
Show-Me Institute Finding
"No consultant has EVER opposed a TIF application in Missouri."
The "but for" test has become "meaningless because they are so easily gamed."
— Show-Me Institute analysis of Missouri TIF practices
The Smoking Gun Question
The developer purchased Country Club Plaza BEFORE requesting TIF.
If the project was impossible without subsidies, why did they already commit $175.6 million to buy it? This timeline undermines the entire "but for" justification.
"Blight" is a Joke
Statutory Definition
Under Missouri law, a TIF area must demonstrate "insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements, or conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes."
The standard is supposed to be meaningful. TIF was designed for genuinely distressed areas that private investment had abandoned.
The Missouri Blight Standard
"Under Missouri's definition, even the Governor's Mansion could be declared blighted."
— Policy analysts describing how the blight standard has been stretched beyond recognition
The Challenge
How does Country Club Plaza meet blight criteria?
- ? It's one of Kansas City's premier shopping and dining destinations
- ? The developer just paid $175.6 million for it—hardly abandoned
- ? Where are the "insanitary or unsafe conditions"?
- ? The Conservation Study (Exhibit 11) that supposedly proves blight is not public
The Numbers
EATS Captured
$211M
Over 23 years diverted from public services
Capture Rate
100%
'Super TIF' takes every dollar of economic activity taxes
Initial Tax Payment
5-10%
Developer pays a fraction of normal property taxes initially
Potential Term Violation
30 Years
May exceed 23-year statutory limit (RSMo 99.810)
What $211 Million Could Fund Instead
700+
Teachers for 10 years
15
New school buildings
$7.5M
Per year for parks & infrastructure
Missing Documents
Key documents that should be public under Missouri's Sunshine Law remain hidden from taxpayers. Without these, there's no way to verify the "but for" test or blight determination.
Conservation Study (Exhibit 11)
The document that supposedly proves "blight"—not publicly available
Cost-Benefit Analysis (Exhibit 9)
Required by statute—where is the public's copy?
TIF Commission Vote Result
How did the commission vote? The result has not been made public
Developer Financial Pro Formas
What do their own projections show about project viability?
Use the Sunshine Law
Missouri's Sunshine Law (RSMo Chapter 610) gives you the right to request these documents. Port KC must respond within 2 business days.
Legal Vulnerabilities
1. TIF Challenges Are Possible
Missouri courts have ruled that development incentive approvals can be challenged when statutory requirements aren't genuinely met. Affected taxing jurisdictions (like KCPS) have standing to object and challenge TIF plans that harm their revenue.
2. 30-Year Term vs. 23-Year Statutory Maximum
RSMo 99.810 limits TIF districts to 23 years. The Plaza deal's structure may effectively extend beyond this limit through phasing and other mechanisms. This could be challenged.
3. "But For" Test Challenge
The developer's pre-purchase of the Plaza undermines any claim that development couldn't happen without TIF. A legal challenge could focus on this timeline inconsistency.
4. Blight Determination
If the Conservation Study doesn't meet statutory requirements for demonstrating blight, the entire TIF designation could be vulnerable to legal challenge.
This TIF Can Be Stopped
Legal vulnerabilities exist. Public pressure works. The vote has already been delayed twice. Keep fighting.
Demand Answers
The $211 million TIF is based on hidden documents and a questionable "but for" test. Use the Sunshine Law to demand transparency.