3 ms·

The infrastructure improvements needed to support the data center will be paid for by $20.1 million in state bonding - that is, they'll be paid for over time by

The infrastructure improvements needed to support the data center will be paid for by $20.1 million in state bonding - that is, they'll be paid for over time by Minnesota taxpayers at large. So there's no "shortfall" for Becker or Sherburne County, but only because the rest of the state is picking up the tab.

tptacek 8y ago
That's the answer I'm looking for. Thanks. But that's not necessarily happening, right? And the deal might not be limited to tax breaks. State Sen. Andrew Mathews (R–Milaca) and state Rep. Shane Mekeland (R–Clear Lake) recently introduced a bill to provide an additional $20.1 million in state bonds to give the Becker Business Park—where the data center would be built—a facelift. Is Google actually demanding that? Do the benefits of that investment accrue solely to Google? The sponsor of the bill claims to be supporting it whether or not Google selects Becker.
- tfehring 8y ago
  Of course the infrastructure investment would benefit the Becker area in general and potentially attract other employers, but it seems vanishingly unlikely that Minnesota communities other than Becker would come out ahead on this investment. It may be a net positive for the state as a whole, but it's not just a matter of deciding whether to take less of Google's money or none at all - there are winners and losers, and it's not trivial to see how things net out. > The sponsor of the bill claims to be supporting it whether or not Google selects Becker. Well yeah, why wouldn't he? He has plenty of political capital since Minnesota's recently elected governor, a Democrat, is pushing for lots of ambitious legislation. And what's not to like about spending other people's money in your own community?
  - tptacek 8y ago
    The argument against the waste pipe bond (what Reason describes as a "facelift" for "Becker Business Park", which appears to be an empty field) seems straightforward and I'm not really litigating it. Sure: the state maybe shouldn't pay for that. The argument against the property tax break is less clear to me. Like, all things being equal, I'd rather Google pay more tax than less tax. But it's not at all clear to me what Minnesota's BATNA is here. They can demand the property taxes, and Google can site elsewhere. Google will be fine, and Minnesota will be out a data center. I don't think a data center is an economic miracle or anything, but it's hard to believe it could possibly be a net negative for rural Minnesota. I don't have a strong opinion about this story, I just want to understand the outrage a little better.
    - tfehring 8y ago
      I don't think either Becker specifically or Minnesota more broadly has a better alternative than to demand the property tax and, presumably, let Google build elsewhere. I also agree that if the property tax breaks were the only incentive that Minnesota was offering, it would be a clear net positive to offer those tax breaks. But the need for a bonding bill makes the trade-off less straightforward, since it requires Minnesota to commit funding directly, instead of just foregoing tax revenue that it "should" (but wouldn't) receive. I live in Minneapolis and hadn't heard about the proposal until I saw this thread, so I'm inclined to think the outrage is mostly manufactured. To the extent that it's real, it's probably driven by the fact that Wisconsin seems to have gotten fleeced by Foxconn.

tptacek 8y ago

That's the answer I'm looking for. Thanks. But that's not necessarily happening, right? And the deal might not be limited to tax breaks. State Sen. Andrew Mathews (R–Milaca) and state Rep. Shane Mekeland (R–Clear Lake) recently introduced a bill to provide an additional $20.1 million in state bonds to give the Becker Business Park—where the data center would be built—a facelift. Is Google actually demanding that? Do the benefits of that investment accrue solely to Google? The sponsor of the bill claims to be supporting it whether or not Google selects Becker.

tfehring 8y ago
Of course the infrastructure investment would benefit the Becker area in general and potentially attract other employers, but it seems vanishingly unlikely that Minnesota communities other than Becker would come out ahead on this investment. It may be a net positive for the state as a whole, but it's not just a matter of deciding whether to take less of Google's money or none at all - there are winners and losers, and it's not trivial to see how things net out. > The sponsor of the bill claims to be supporting it whether or not Google selects Becker. Well yeah, why wouldn't he? He has plenty of political capital since Minnesota's recently elected governor, a Democrat, is pushing for lots of ambitious legislation. And what's not to like about spending other people's money in your own community?
- tptacek 8y ago
  The argument against the waste pipe bond (what Reason describes as a "facelift" for "Becker Business Park", which appears to be an empty field) seems straightforward and I'm not really litigating it. Sure: the state maybe shouldn't pay for that. The argument against the property tax break is less clear to me. Like, all things being equal, I'd rather Google pay more tax than less tax. But it's not at all clear to me what Minnesota's BATNA is here. They can demand the property taxes, and Google can site elsewhere. Google will be fine, and Minnesota will be out a data center. I don't think a data center is an economic miracle or anything, but it's hard to believe it could possibly be a net negative for rural Minnesota. I don't have a strong opinion about this story, I just want to understand the outrage a little better.
  - tfehring 8y ago
    I don't think either Becker specifically or Minnesota more broadly has a better alternative than to demand the property tax and, presumably, let Google build elsewhere. I also agree that if the property tax breaks were the only incentive that Minnesota was offering, it would be a clear net positive to offer those tax breaks. But the need for a bonding bill makes the trade-off less straightforward, since it requires Minnesota to commit funding directly, instead of just foregoing tax revenue that it "should" (but wouldn't) receive. I live in Minneapolis and hadn't heard about the proposal until I saw this thread, so I'm inclined to think the outrage is mostly manufactured. To the extent that it's real, it's probably driven by the fact that Wisconsin seems to have gotten fleeced by Foxconn.