Toledo and the State breathe a sigh of relief....

Yet questions remain on the whole issue of tax abatements. From the Cleveland Plain Dealer article as linked above:

Toledo resident Charlotte Cuno and others contended that the tax break interfered with interstate commerce because it gave Ohio an unfair advantage over other states. Ohio argued that other states had their own tax incentives, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2004 ruled in Cuno's favor.

The Supreme Court, however, decided the case on a much narrower basis. It ruled that Cuno lacked legal standing, or the right to bring the case, because she and other plaintiffs were not directly affected by Ohio's tax decision. The federal courts were never intended to be "virtually continuing monitors of the wisdom and soundness of state fiscal administration," Roberts wrote.

I do have to agree with that last statement, we the voters are supposed to be the monitors of the wisdom and soundness of fiscal administration locally and on a state basis. Either by ballot or by encouraging legislation.

Abatements seem to have become a poker chip in the never ending how much can we give you that another location won't or can't. Sometimes I think they do have a positive outcome, so I'm not anti-abatement but I do think that they should only be offered when it is demonstrates there is a large scale benefit to all from an abatement rather than millions in abatements that will only benefit a limited number.

UPDATE: With a curtsy to Roland at his blog Roland's Ramblings here is the Link to the pdf of the decision for those of you who are interested in reading it.