State Legislature makes wrong reform to IDA boards

Industrial development agencies have long been political creatures, despite attempts to keep their work independent and apolitical. But a bill that passed both houses of the State Legislature this year would remove even the pretense that IDA board members are independent, experienced professionals who aren't answering to particular constituencies as they dole out tax breaks to businesses that promise to expand or add jobs and developers who build needed housing.

The bill would require IDAs to include representatives from unions and public schools on their boards of directors. It awaits Gov. Kathy Hochul's approval. She should not sign it. 

Advocates say the bill would encourage a more open process and add IDA members who bring important views to the table — especially when it comes to schools, whose officials often oppose new housing for fear of increased enrollment, and unionized workers, who hope any IDA-approved project will be built by union labor. And indeed, such advocacy groups at times have legitimate objections or questions regarding an IDA application. But there already is a process by which they can voice those sentiments, whether they have a mandated seat on the board or not.

Every proposal before an IDA includes ample opportunities for public comment and input from key constituencies, including local school districts and union advocates. Five of Long Island's eight IDAs already include a representative from labor, and at least five of the boards have members with connections to public or private schools. 

The proposed legislation creates a slippery slope without an end. Why not require every board to include a developer? An environmentalist? A transportation advocate? A finance professional? A business owner? A minimum-wage taxpayer?

The school board portion of the proposed legislation carries additional concerns. School board members typically face reelection every three years. That would create the potential for constant turnover on boards where consistency and institutional knowledge are key. 

That's not to say there is no need for reform. The legislature should more broadly examine the laws that govern IDAs and refresh them where necessary, focusing on the need for openness and follow-through to make sure that those given tax breaks deliver on their promises. With agencies rightly focusing on boosting housing production, which wasn't contemplated by the legislation that governs them, an update to the IDAs' mission, goals and areas of focus would be appropriate.

IDAs must listen to all voices — whether or not they're represented on the boards themselves. They shouldn't say “yes” to everything, but they also must avoid the traps set by those who hope to block all proposals. IDA board members, no matter their title or background, should be thoughtful stewards of taxpayer funds who provide incentives that will benefit their town, county and region.