Note: This is the promised expansion of the brief headline item i posted earlier today.

I don’t think I’ve ever felt sorry for Tom Salmon before.

Our esteemed former Auditor, now out of the spotlight*, became a convenient target for political slings and arrows today, as Governor Shumlin called for new legislation regarding Tax Increment Financing (TIF) along with forgiveness for any possible violations of current TIF law by local communities.

*Anybody know if Tommy Boy has accepted any of those lucrative out-of-state offers he’d supposedly received?

Salmon, you may recall, released a 2011 audit that harshly criticized the TIF law’s ambiguities and called on four communities to give the state Education Fund a total of $6 million to make up for alleged underpayments. Shumlin echoed Salmon’s conclusions about the iaw, but rejected Salmon’s $6 million demand. Instead, he said, “Let bygones be bygones. Let’s clarify the future and wipe the slate clean from the past.” (Photo: the Governor speaking today on the formerly mean streets of Winooski, now sanctified by the power of the TIF.)

He also made it clear that he stands with the communities, not the audit. When asked if that $6 million should be considered a debit against the state Education Fund, Shumlin replied:

Well, some would argue that. I would argue that it was never really there, because the towns’ interpretation is pretty clear that they didn’t owe it.

In other words, the towns are right and Salmon was wrong.

Makes sense from a purely political point of view, I guess. Choose between a party turncoat who made loads of enemies and squandered his credibility, and is now gone from the scene; and the mayors of Vermont’s largest communities, who have given their support to Shumlin even when it meant crossing party lines.

Yeah, let’s go with the mayors.

After the jump: Some pretty strong anti-audit comments. Plus reaction from the current Auditor, Doug Hoffer.

For those just joining us, TIF is a way to subsidize development in troubled communities. It issues bonds to finance development projects, and uses the extra property-tax revenue created by the development to pay off the bonds. Vermont’s current law contains no enforcement mechanism, and left substantial room for interpretation by local officials.

Shumlin announced his call for amnesty and a legislative do-over outside the Champlain Mill development in downtown Winooski, which he cited as an example of the good that has been done through TIFs in the past.  He surrounded himself with mayors and other local officials, who were happy to join the Salmon dogpile. For example, Brian Palaia, Milton town manager:

This has been a concerning matter for the past two years, since the state auditor decided to cast aspersions upon this important economic development tool.

Aspersions, indeed. Funny way to characterize an audit. Later, Steve Jeffrey, head of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, referred to “the kinks and little problems we’ve run into with the TIFs.” Yeah, six million bucks worth of kinks.  

Secretary of Administration Jeb Spaulding sought to isolate Salmon by invoking his successor:

The current auditor supports the proposal in front of us. because there’s a great deal of uncertainty about where the numbers come from, and it doesn’t do anybody any good to keep arguing over numbers that may or may not be accurate, and instead get the rules clear and the enforcement clear moving forward.

See, it’s just too darn CONFUSING to figure out who’s right and wrong, so we’re just going to forget the whole thing.

As for “the current auditor,” Doug Hoffer wasn’t there. I asked if we was invited, and Shumlin spokesflack Sue Allen said that Hoffer “couldn’t come.”

Couldn’t, or wouldn’t?

LATE ADD: I just received the following reaction from Doug Hoffer by e-mail:

But really, for all my snark, I can see Shumlin’s point of view. The state law was badly written, to the point where it may truly be impossible to say who really owes how much. And, he argues, TIF is too important an economic-development tool to put on the shelf while we figure out who’s right and who’s wrong. Better to just start from scratch. If we can get it right this time, maybe this is the best thing for all concerned.

That’s the important thing going forward: what mechanisms will the Legislature create for oversight and enforcement of TIF requirements? Vermont doesn’t have a great record with economic-development initiatives; the original TIF law isn’t the first to either be ambiguously written or to be ignored in practice. Take, for example, Howard Dean’s corporate tax credit program, subject of a pretty savage report by then-Auditor Elizabeth Ready.  

It’s not clear if Shumlin’s proposal has actually been written yet. I asked him if his TIF plan was based on Salmon’s recommendations, and he said “Some of it, yes.” But when I asked him to elaborate on the differences, he quickly changed the subject.

A good TIF bill would be, on balance, a good thing for Vermont. But the bill needs to be strong enough to eliminate room for funny business, and enforcement needs to be tough enough to eliminate the sweetheart deals that sometimes arise from poorly-managed tax-incentive programs.

The devil, or the angel, will be in the details.