6 ms·

Is it possible that this financing proposal is just Alphabet's attempt to offer an alternative to local governments that would be reluctant to commit to directl

Is it possible that this financing proposal is just Alphabet's attempt to offer an alternative to local governments that would be reluctant to commit to directly fund these high-cost developments? Google is pretty evil, but this project has been moving very slowly and has been relatively responsive to public concerns. They're not trying to pull a fast one on the city like Amazon and NYC. As a resident of the neighborhood under discussion, I would love to see it developed. I'd rather not offer Alphabet this incremental tax revenue, but I'd accept it: that would be a tiny fraction of the value the project would create for the city, and potentially for the world if some of the experiments are successful and spread.

rhizome 8y ago
Frankly I'd prefer if zillionaire companies were laughed out of the room when asking for concessions. Build in Regina if you don't like the way Toronto currently works, they'll be happy to have you and the lower property costs will more than make up for the taxes.
- tyre 8y ago
  They're not asking for concessions. They're asking to be paid for the project they're building. Whether the project is worth what they're asking is a separate question. This is about a private company fronting the cost of infrastructure development and being paid back with revenues over time. That doesn't feel shady.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    I would point out the Google Fiber rollout in Louisville as a better example of what they want to do: Create an experimental infrastructure for their own benefit, that may or may not provide long term value to residents. Google ripped up the roads in Louisville to install fiber with an experimental methodology, and then abandoned it after it became clear the experiment failed. Rather than fix it, they're just going to leave. Louisville spent a ton of money fighting to bring Google in, gave them tons of allowances to do things nobody else would've been allowed to do, and got left holding the bag. Since Google's fiber install was bad, Louisville can't even use the network after they leave. It's just trash. Especially given the Louisville example, Toronto residents should fight like heck to not end up paying for Google's experiments. https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/google-fiber-ending-service-in-louisville/article_8e5320fc-2b04-11e9-8d53-2b2c0b116aaa.html https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/google-fiber-ending-service-in...
    - lawrenceyan 8y ago
      Do you live in Louisville? How would you say tech companies like Google permeate through daily life? Is there a decent job market there for tech?
    - ehsankia 8y ago
      Which is exactly why being paid in tax revenue over time is a much better solution, because if they fail and leave, they won't make money. If you pay them in a flat cost, then they are not as invested at seeing it succeed long term.
      - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
        The mistake you are making is believing Google should be paid at all for their own project they initiated for their own benefit. This is something Google wants to do, not something Toronto wanted or needed. If Google wants to use cities as guinea pigs, the cities should not be paying the price at all. Arguably, Google should be paying Toronto for the opportunity. New York decided it didn't really need to pay for Amazon to come there. Wisconsin learned how well paying Foxconn to set up a factory there worked out. Governments need to stop selling out their citizens to big tech companies, and start using tax dollars to benefit their constituents. Companies with tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in reserve cash do not need handouts.
        typeformer 8y ago
        best take
        ehsankia 8y ago
        You are conflating completely unrelated events. Amazon getting $3B tax cuts to build their own office there is in noway comparable to Google building homes, transportation and factories for a city. It's not Google's "job" to build your house, and you calling it "their own project" doesn't mean they should do it for free. If you don't want their help, go ahead and say no, but to expect this to be done for free is ridiculous and naive, and also in no way comparable to the Amazon situation.
  - barkingcat 8y ago
    Nobody bought anything from Google. This is like Apple coming to you saying "we're making you a laptop, pay up" and you saying "But I never ordered one from you"
  - munk-a 8y ago
    Why should the public pay for this project? Is it a project the government set out to do and ended up hiring google as a contractor? No? It's something google wants to do and Toronto is allowing them to do? Why should the city pay for the privileged of letting google make money?
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    > They're not asking for concessions. They're asking to be paid for the project they're building. Who asked them to build that project?
  - rhizome 8y ago
    It's a concession that the resources not go somewhere else. Regardless, it's ridiculous that every city these companies set upon aren't charging them full m-f'ing freight.
eigenvector 8y ago
If they're going to finance it with taxes anyway, there's no benefit to the local government which already has access to low-interest debt financing with that same property tax revenue stream. It's not as if Toronto can't afford the Waterfront East LRT without Google fronting the money.
nostromo 8y ago
I'm confused about why tax revenue needs to be forked over to Google at all. Google is a developer like any other here. They should be able to make enough money from the project on its own. If they can't, then don't move forward with the project.
- gpm 8y ago
  To be fair it sounds like this proposal includes building public transit infrastructure for the city, which is something you would usually expect to be paid for. Why we wouldn't just pay them a dollar amount and be done with it though...
  - ehsankia 8y ago
    Percentage, similar to giving stock, makes Google invested into making it as good as possible, because the more successful it is the more money they make. If the flat amount is roughly equal to the tax revenue from a successful development, why is it suddenly "evil"? It also spreads the payment over a longer period of time, making it easier to finance. If it fails, Google gets less money, so they will try their best to make it work.
    - Pharmakon 8y ago
      Google can afford to write off a huge amount of money, and there’s no way in hell the amount on the table even approaches that. As for evil, look at their business model and extrapolate. If they want to take a risk with an insane project they’re unsuited for, let them shoulder the risks or rethink the feasibility of the project. The state owes them nothing, especially given how Google dodges their taxes.
    - gpm 8y ago
      > why is it suddenly "evil" You're putting words in my mouth, I never said anything approaching that. It's somewhat problematic because it obscures the amount we are agreeing to pay, and it lets politicians play accounting games to make themselves look better. That's not to say it's "evil".
fock 8y ago
short questions: does the public "need" these "high-cost developments"? Is there any advantage for the public or is it all about Alphabet having a giant playground where they don't have to deal with pesky customers but can have their small herd of citizen-sheep they are not directly accountable to? Is such a village more sustainable than just taking the same building without tech?
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Google is not 'evil' in this context, it's just that their vision is probably inconsistent with what real communities mean. Why on earth anyone thinks a bunch of software engineers from the Valley (who can't even build a reasonable Social Networking UI) are going to 'rethink' communities is beyond me. Have we seen any specifics as to what this actually means? What is this money going to go towards, exactly? I doubt Google will make a dime from this. If anything, the city could materially gain. Second - AWS was not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes, the deal was not perfect but net great for NYC.

rhizome 8y ago

Frankly I'd prefer if zillionaire companies were laughed out of the room when asking for concessions. Build in Regina if you don't like the way Toronto currently works, they'll be happy to have you and the lower property costs will more than make up for the taxes.

tyre 8y ago
They're not asking for concessions. They're asking to be paid for the project they're building. Whether the project is worth what they're asking is a separate question. This is about a private company fronting the cost of infrastructure development and being paid back with revenues over time. That doesn't feel shady.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  I would point out the Google Fiber rollout in Louisville as a better example of what they want to do: Create an experimental infrastructure for their own benefit, that may or may not provide long term value to residents. Google ripped up the roads in Louisville to install fiber with an experimental methodology, and then abandoned it after it became clear the experiment failed. Rather than fix it, they're just going to leave. Louisville spent a ton of money fighting to bring Google in, gave them tons of allowances to do things nobody else would've been allowed to do, and got left holding the bag. Since Google's fiber install was bad, Louisville can't even use the network after they leave. It's just trash. Especially given the Louisville example, Toronto residents should fight like heck to not end up paying for Google's experiments. https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/google-fiber-ending-service-in-louisville/article_8e5320fc-2b04-11e9-8d53-2b2c0b116aaa.html https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/google-fiber-ending-service-in...
  - lawrenceyan 8y ago
    Do you live in Louisville? How would you say tech companies like Google permeate through daily life? Is there a decent job market there for tech?
  - ehsankia 8y ago
    Which is exactly why being paid in tax revenue over time is a much better solution, because if they fail and leave, they won't make money. If you pay them in a flat cost, then they are not as invested at seeing it succeed long term.
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      The mistake you are making is believing Google should be paid at all for their own project they initiated for their own benefit. This is something Google wants to do, not something Toronto wanted or needed. If Google wants to use cities as guinea pigs, the cities should not be paying the price at all. Arguably, Google should be paying Toronto for the opportunity. New York decided it didn't really need to pay for Amazon to come there. Wisconsin learned how well paying Foxconn to set up a factory there worked out. Governments need to stop selling out their citizens to big tech companies, and start using tax dollars to benefit their constituents. Companies with tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in reserve cash do not need handouts.
      - typeformer 8y ago
        best take
      - ehsankia 8y ago
        You are conflating completely unrelated events. Amazon getting $3B tax cuts to build their own office there is in noway comparable to Google building homes, transportation and factories for a city. It's not Google's "job" to build your house, and you calling it "their own project" doesn't mean they should do it for free. If you don't want their help, go ahead and say no, but to expect this to be done for free is ridiculous and naive, and also in no way comparable to the Amazon situation.
- barkingcat 8y ago
  Nobody bought anything from Google. This is like Apple coming to you saying "we're making you a laptop, pay up" and you saying "But I never ordered one from you"
- munk-a 8y ago
  Why should the public pay for this project? Is it a project the government set out to do and ended up hiring google as a contractor? No? It's something google wants to do and Toronto is allowing them to do? Why should the city pay for the privileged of letting google make money?
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  > They're not asking for concessions. They're asking to be paid for the project they're building. Who asked them to build that project?
- rhizome 8y ago
  It's a concession that the resources not go somewhere else. Regardless, it's ridiculous that every city these companies set upon aren't charging them full m-f'ing freight.

eigenvector 8y ago

If they're going to finance it with taxes anyway, there's no benefit to the local government which already has access to low-interest debt financing with that same property tax revenue stream. It's not as if Toronto can't afford the Waterfront East LRT without Google fronting the money.

nostromo 8y ago

I'm confused about why tax revenue needs to be forked over to Google at all. Google is a developer like any other here. They should be able to make enough money from the project on its own. If they can't, then don't move forward with the project.

gpm 8y ago
To be fair it sounds like this proposal includes building public transit infrastructure for the city, which is something you would usually expect to be paid for. Why we wouldn't just pay them a dollar amount and be done with it though...
- ehsankia 8y ago
  Percentage, similar to giving stock, makes Google invested into making it as good as possible, because the more successful it is the more money they make. If the flat amount is roughly equal to the tax revenue from a successful development, why is it suddenly "evil"? It also spreads the payment over a longer period of time, making it easier to finance. If it fails, Google gets less money, so they will try their best to make it work.
  - Pharmakon 8y ago
    Google can afford to write off a huge amount of money, and there’s no way in hell the amount on the table even approaches that. As for evil, look at their business model and extrapolate. If they want to take a risk with an insane project they’re unsuited for, let them shoulder the risks or rethink the feasibility of the project. The state owes them nothing, especially given how Google dodges their taxes.
  - gpm 8y ago
    > why is it suddenly "evil" You're putting words in my mouth, I never said anything approaching that. It's somewhat problematic because it obscures the amount we are agreeing to pay, and it lets politicians play accounting games to make themselves look better. That's not to say it's "evil".

fock 8y ago

short questions: does the public "need" these "high-cost developments"? Is there any advantage for the public or is it all about Alphabet having a giant playground where they don't have to deal with pesky customers but can have their small herd of citizen-sheep they are not directly accountable to? Is such a village more sustainable than just taking the same building without tech?

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Google is not 'evil' in this context, it's just that their vision is probably inconsistent with what real communities mean. Why on earth anyone thinks a bunch of software engineers from the Valley (who can't even build a reasonable Social Networking UI) are going to 'rethink' communities is beyond me. Have we seen any specifics as to what this actually means? What is this money going to go towards, exactly? I doubt Google will make a dime from this. If anything, the city could materially gain. Second - AWS was not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes, the deal was not perfect but net great for NYC.