4 ms·

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 t

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".
- ehsankia 8y ago
  > it obscures the amount we are agreeing to pay Not necessarily. I'm sure they have target numbers in mind in terms of how much returns this construction will bring. So instead of paying in a single sum, they simply adjust the percentage to add up to the same amount, assuming the place is as successful as they had hoped. If it ends being more successful, it's a win-win situation because Google makes more, and so does the city. If Google fails, then they also get paid less for it, and it's less of a loss for the city. Lastly, paying over 30 years seems far easier to handle than a single sum too. In almost every way this seems like a better choice.
  - gpm 8y ago
    > I'm sure they have target numbers And we trust Google's target numbers to decide how much Google should get paid? Any reliable baseline numbers here are basically impossible, because - The land is massively underutilized right now consider it's location, with or without Google's help it is going to become more utilized and property values are going to go up. - The government is pouring billions of dollars into this area, which is going to have returns with or without Google's help. > it's a win-win situation Paying someone more money is not a win-win. Developing the land is, but the negotiation over how much you get paid is approximately zero sum.
    - ehsankia 8y ago
      > And we trust Google's target numbers to decide how much Google should get paid? I was talking about the city's targets. > The government is pouring billions of dollars into this area Right, and Google is proposing to instead of taking billions as a flat sum, taking it over 30 years instead, because they believe in the success of the project. > which is going to have returns with or without Google's help. They clearly want Google's help, as this project is already 1-2 years in the working, and has already gotten approval from all 3 levels of government. If they didn't want Google, they could've very easily refused the offer. No one is forcing anything on anyone. > Paying someone more money is not a win-win. Who said more money? Why do you instantly assume the worst? Take any amount of money you were going to pay them for their work. Take any target you had for how successful the project was going to be, and calculate the percentage distributed over 30 years. No one is talking about paying them more than they are owed.
      - gpm 8y ago
        > I was talking about the city's targets. Ok, the next part addressed why it's not really possible for those to be accurate either. Also see the whole 407 thing discussed elsewhere in the thread. Trusting the cities numbers to be accurate/not just a version of Google's numbers is foolish. The fact that you have to trust someones numbers at all is sufficient proof of my original statement, that this obscures the actual cost of the project. > and has already gotten approval from all 3 levels of government. That's a gross exaggeration. All the levels of government are talking to them, but as discussed in the article they are hardly on board. Edit (2m post posting): Sorry, this article: https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/02/15/news/alphabets-sidewalk-labs-was-secretly-considering-big-plans-toronto-neighbourhood https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/02/15/news/alphabets-s... > Who said more money? Why do you instantly assume the worst? You did. I don't appreciate the accusation of dishonesty. > it's a win-win situation because Google makes more, [...]

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".

ehsankia 8y ago
> it obscures the amount we are agreeing to pay Not necessarily. I'm sure they have target numbers in mind in terms of how much returns this construction will bring. So instead of paying in a single sum, they simply adjust the percentage to add up to the same amount, assuming the place is as successful as they had hoped. If it ends being more successful, it's a win-win situation because Google makes more, and so does the city. If Google fails, then they also get paid less for it, and it's less of a loss for the city. Lastly, paying over 30 years seems far easier to handle than a single sum too. In almost every way this seems like a better choice.
- gpm 8y ago
  > I'm sure they have target numbers And we trust Google's target numbers to decide how much Google should get paid? Any reliable baseline numbers here are basically impossible, because - The land is massively underutilized right now consider it's location, with or without Google's help it is going to become more utilized and property values are going to go up. - The government is pouring billions of dollars into this area, which is going to have returns with or without Google's help. > it's a win-win situation Paying someone more money is not a win-win. Developing the land is, but the negotiation over how much you get paid is approximately zero sum.
  - ehsankia 8y ago
    > And we trust Google's target numbers to decide how much Google should get paid? I was talking about the city's targets. > The government is pouring billions of dollars into this area Right, and Google is proposing to instead of taking billions as a flat sum, taking it over 30 years instead, because they believe in the success of the project. > which is going to have returns with or without Google's help. They clearly want Google's help, as this project is already 1-2 years in the working, and has already gotten approval from all 3 levels of government. If they didn't want Google, they could've very easily refused the offer. No one is forcing anything on anyone. > Paying someone more money is not a win-win. Who said more money? Why do you instantly assume the worst? Take any amount of money you were going to pay them for their work. Take any target you had for how successful the project was going to be, and calculate the percentage distributed over 30 years. No one is talking about paying them more than they are owed.
    - gpm 8y ago
      > I was talking about the city's targets. Ok, the next part addressed why it's not really possible for those to be accurate either. Also see the whole 407 thing discussed elsewhere in the thread. Trusting the cities numbers to be accurate/not just a version of Google's numbers is foolish. The fact that you have to trust someones numbers at all is sufficient proof of my original statement, that this obscures the actual cost of the project. > and has already gotten approval from all 3 levels of government. That's a gross exaggeration. All the levels of government are talking to them, but as discussed in the article they are hardly on board. Edit (2m post posting): Sorry, this article: https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/02/15/news/alphabets-sidewalk-labs-was-secretly-considering-big-plans-toronto-neighbourhood https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/02/15/news/alphabets-s... > Who said more money? Why do you instantly assume the worst? You did. I don't appreciate the accusation of dishonesty. > it's a win-win situation because Google makes more, [...]