4 ms·

Not going to miss them. Local governments giving huge tax breaks in exchange for stadiums, businesses relocating never works out.

by berbec 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
emaginniss 8y ago
I don't know if you can say "never". The relationship between Dell and Round Rock, TX was based on such a deal and was a significant boon in the growth of a small town into a reasonable size suburb with a good amount of industry. https://www.statesman.com/news/20161125/this-day-in-tech-history-when-dell-almost-kept-its-hq-in-austin-instead-of-round-rock https://www.statesman.com/news/20161125/this-day-in-tech-his...
GVIrish 8y ago
I'm very much not a fan of using public money to build stadiums for billionaires, but the deal with Amazon is a bit different in that it would actually have positive economic impact for the eventual location. With a stadium, you only employ a relatively small number of people during the week and off-season. Staff during games and concerts are not really earning a ton of money that will create new economic activity. With Amazon, tech workers actually increase the tax base and they're spending their money at local businesses. At least with the Virginia deal, the tax breaks don't kick in until they actual create jobs at the promised salary levels. Now I don't really agree with giving a massive private business all of these tax breaks, they can afford to expand without them if it makes business sense. The problem is that each state is competing with each other and FOMO kicks in. Without that powerful motivation companies wouldn't pull these stunts. Although eventually they'd try to pit countries against each other (which they kind of already do).
kodablah 8y ago
I have plenty of examples where it works out. The town I live in gave large tax breaks not too long ago and it's working well. Nearby, sports facilities were financed with balloted measures at the request of the public, sometimes in conjunction with the local ISDs who share the facilities. The vast majority are benefiting from this public/private economic cooperation.
- JohnFen 8y ago
  I can offer a counterexample. In the city I live in, there have been several major tech companies that were given enormous tax breaks and other gifts in exchange for moving in. They'd move in, build their buildings and factories, and everything would look rosy for 3-5 years. Then they'd cut and run, leaving the city worse off than if it had never done the deal in the first place.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    Yup, goes both ways. Assuming the companies promised more and underdelivered, your city's economic council should have written the contract-break into the contract. Or assuming the companies didn't promise that much, your city seems to either have done a deal aware of the potential of negative outcome (and accepted it) or did not do due diligence. But it doesn't discount the idea of economic incentives as a whole due to poor city planning in this case (or a gamble, whichever it was).
    - JohnFen 8y ago
      > it doesn't discount the idea of economic incentives as a whole I never said it did. However, if you really need to make a contract iron-clad in order to protect yourself (and good luck with that!), that's a very strong indication that the entity you're dealing with is untrustworthy and you shouldn't be getting into bed with them in the first place. The problem with most major corporations (and particularly major tech companies these days) is that they are not trustworthy actors.
- asdff 8y ago
  Sports facilities are a shared multi use venue that a city could make use of for decades. Amazon can and would move their staff whenever they want, and all the subsidies given to them just to have their people sit in Queens for 8 hours a day would be pissed away.

Not going to miss them. Local governments giving huge tax breaks in exchange for stadiums, businesses relocating never works out.

by berbec 8y ago

Not going to miss them. Local governments giving huge tax breaks in exchange for stadiums, businesses relocating never works out.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

emaginniss 8y ago

I don't know if you can say "never". The relationship between Dell and Round Rock, TX was based on such a deal and was a significant boon in the growth of a small town into a reasonable size suburb with a good amount of industry. https://www.statesman.com/news/20161125/this-day-in-tech-history-when-dell-almost-kept-its-hq-in-austin-instead-of-round-rock https://www.statesman.com/news/20161125/this-day-in-tech-his...

GVIrish 8y ago

I'm very much not a fan of using public money to build stadiums for billionaires, but the deal with Amazon is a bit different in that it would actually have positive economic impact for the eventual location. With a stadium, you only employ a relatively small number of people during the week and off-season. Staff during games and concerts are not really earning a ton of money that will create new economic activity. With Amazon, tech workers actually increase the tax base and they're spending their money at local businesses. At least with the Virginia deal, the tax breaks don't kick in until they actual create jobs at the promised salary levels. Now I don't really agree with giving a massive private business all of these tax breaks, they can afford to expand without them if it makes business sense. The problem is that each state is competing with each other and FOMO kicks in. Without that powerful motivation companies wouldn't pull these stunts. Although eventually they'd try to pit countries against each other (which they kind of already do).

kodablah 8y ago

I have plenty of examples where it works out. The town I live in gave large tax breaks not too long ago and it's working well. Nearby, sports facilities were financed with balloted measures at the request of the public, sometimes in conjunction with the local ISDs who share the facilities. The vast majority are benefiting from this public/private economic cooperation.

JohnFen 8y ago
I can offer a counterexample. In the city I live in, there have been several major tech companies that were given enormous tax breaks and other gifts in exchange for moving in. They'd move in, build their buildings and factories, and everything would look rosy for 3-5 years. Then they'd cut and run, leaving the city worse off than if it had never done the deal in the first place.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Yup, goes both ways. Assuming the companies promised more and underdelivered, your city's economic council should have written the contract-break into the contract. Or assuming the companies didn't promise that much, your city seems to either have done a deal aware of the potential of negative outcome (and accepted it) or did not do due diligence. But it doesn't discount the idea of economic incentives as a whole due to poor city planning in this case (or a gamble, whichever it was).
  - JohnFen 8y ago
    > it doesn't discount the idea of economic incentives as a whole I never said it did. However, if you really need to make a contract iron-clad in order to protect yourself (and good luck with that!), that's a very strong indication that the entity you're dealing with is untrustworthy and you shouldn't be getting into bed with them in the first place. The problem with most major corporations (and particularly major tech companies these days) is that they are not trustworthy actors.
asdff 8y ago
Sports facilities are a shared multi use venue that a city could make use of for decades. Amazon can and would move their staff whenever they want, and all the subsidies given to them just to have their people sit in Queens for 8 hours a day would be pissed away.