Detroit, MI December 6, 2006 -- The unfair geographic distribution of economic development subsidies in Michigan favors well-off and thinly populated areas, delivering few benefits to the state as a whole and harming the state's economy. The state should get all the options on the table and begin coordinating its economic development programs with land use planning to make more efficient use of infrastructure, reduce tax base stress, and revitalize existing communities.

Those are the key conclusions of the largest mapping study ever performed on tax breaks and grants given to specific companies for job creation and retention. The study, "The Geography of Incentives: Economic Development and Land Use in Michigan," was released today by Good Jobs First at a news conference in Detroit. It was produced through a grant from the C.S. Mott Foundation.

Mapping almost 4,000 subsidy deals from 2001 through 2004, the study finds that they are geographically biased against central cities and other older communities. A lack of public participation in the planning results in deals that have favored affluent, thinly populated and newly developing areas-places that need little help and also have the most sprawling land use patterns.

"Our report builds upon the findings of the bi-partisan Michigan Land Use Leadership Council," said Greg LeRoy, the study's lead author and executive director of Good Jobs First. "The state of Michigan can spend less and get more by leveraging the power of its economic development budget, along with considered public input to achieve better planning and more efficient land use."

The study examines four incentive programs in the Detroit, Lansing, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Flint, Saginaw and Traverse City metro areas. It compares the locations of the deals with plant closings and mass layoffs, concentrated poverty, population density, and tax base stress.

The study finds substantial regional differences: the geographic bias is most acute in the state's largest metro areas of Detroit and Grand Rapids, while Lansing and Saginaw have idiosyncratic job-sprawl patterns. By contrast, the Kalamazoo, Flint and Traverse City areas located deals more often in needy areas.

The full report is available at www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/michiganlanduse.pdf

Appendices are available at:

Appendix A-All Communities
Appendix B-WARN
Appendix C-MEGA
Appendix D-TEDF
Appendix E-EDJT
Appendix F-IFT
Appendix G-Detroit Density
Appendix H-Grand Rapids Density
Appendix I-Kalamazoo Density
Appendix J-Lansing Density
Appendix K-Flint Density
Appendix L-Saginaw Density
Appendix M-Traverse City Density

Maps can be viewed interactively at www.liaa.org/goodjobsfirst.