|
As there is little evidence for cases in which the ownership has
changed, the issue of incentives is difficult to discuss here. We
suggest that the incentives correspond with the character of the actor.
A private/commercial actor needs financial incentives to act or the
prospect of a new market/ a widening of an existing market. The
incentive can also be the prospect to increase his efficiency. A public
actor will be interested in increasing efficiency of his service
delivery, higher acceptance in the neighbourhood and probably increased
participation of residents. But this is a rather crude classification.
For some – like in Hamburg and Copenhagen it is seen as a chance to
improve what they are already doing – and perhaps in the process improve
their general image in the city. But in most cases it is said that there
are no future incentives – or only the value of the produced good
itself.
An outstanding example of effective tangible incentives can be seen
in Dublin . Here we are not talking about incentives to take
responsibility for a project but about an efficient system of
transferring private capital to deprived neighbourhoods: the so-called
“community gains”. This has achieved €12m in three years by deducting
tax incentive gain from developers and creating a community gain fund.
These monies have aided mainstreaming in Dublin as follows:
- Provision of a debt-free enterprise centre for community job
schemes
( Liberty Corner)
- Building of a community sports centre at St Catherine's (Liberties Coombe) - also debt free allowing the
community to run it as a
non-profit operation.
- The payment of monies to committees to mainstream childcare
centres by providing subvention for at least three years.
|
