Someone please correct me, because I'm sure I'm way off base. But I feel like this article is really absurd. The Twitter IPO isn't costing the city money. Du

Someone please correct me, because I'm sure I'm way off base. But I feel like this article is really absurd. The Twitter IPO isn't costing the city money. Due to the tax deal struck between the city and Twitter, the city could have gotten more money, if everything else was exactly the same. The projections are also based on this: "if all employees unload their shares at the midpoint of the offering price range, the lost revenue to the city could add up to $34 million." Not all employees are going to unload their stock, I have to assume. And I don't think you can just assume everything would have been exactly the same if the tax deal didn't exist, right? It seems to me that this headline could have been: "The Twitter IP will cost SD tens of millions because twitter left San Francisco due to the city's unwillingness to negotiate."