AUSTIN | Economic Development

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

We haven’t heard from the city of Austin because it’s not in the city of Austin.

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by Novacek

We haven’t heard from the city of Austin because it’s not in the city of Austin.

So you're saying that the factory will zero effect on the city of Austin's economy, particularly southeast Austin which is Delia Garza's district? It doesn't warrant even a mention of an endorsement for the project from the council member who's district will be most impacted by addressing one of her main campaign issues in a very big way?

Incidentally it is in the city of Austin ETJ, which will require city of Austin involvement. They still need to get permitting from the city.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

So you're saying that the factory will zero effect on the city of Austin's economy, particularly southeast Austin which is Delia Garza's district? It doesn't warrant even a mention of an endorsement for the project from the council member who's district will be most impacted by addressing one of her main campaign issues in a very big way?

Incidentally it is in the city of Austin ETJ, which will require city of Austin involvement. They still need to get permitting from the city.

Honestly the best thing Garza could do is keep quiet about it because there are a lot of people who live in central Austin that don't give a F about East Austin and east Travis County who would oppose it just to oppose it. The lower this flies under the radar until it gets government approval, the better.

[austin242]

What is the social benefit of this factory? More Tesla's in the area?

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by austin242

What is the social benefit of this factory? More Tesla's in the area?

Middle class jobs that don't require college degrees. And it will attract (potentially a lot of) ancillary industries/jobs.

I'm sure there're a lot of secondary or tertiary effects, but for my money those are the top benefits.

[shoreditch]

There are also large co-benefits to the agglomeration of firms within high-tech and advanced manufacturing. I did my graduate thesis on exactly this, comparing Route 128 in MA v/s the Bay Area in the 50s and why one became silicon valley and the other, while still a tech hub in its own right, is nowhere near as important economically or a driving force globally.

TLDR; you want Tesla here.

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by freerover

Honestly the best thing Garza could do is keep quiet about it because there are a lot of people who live in central Austin that don't give a F about East Austin and east Travis County who would oppose it just to oppose it. The lower this flies under the radar until it gets government approval, the better.

While I appreciate the merits of that idea, I would argue that the weight and affect of the city council's endorsement would outweigh any potential of some crackpot from central Austin speaking out.

Again, every anti incentive argument I've heard thus far is premised on the idea that we have some kind of leverage because we're "handing over" existing tax payer money to Tesla. Some people seem to still be under the impression that the incentives are coming directly out of tax payer's pockets. That somehow if Tesla goes to Tusla, we can use the money instead to build roads and address inequity. There is no money if Tesla leaves. The money for the incentives comes from Tesla themselves. They pay their taxes in full and we rebate 80% of it back. It will in fact provide a net positive gain to the coffers, but if they go somewhere else, there is no incentive money to be repurposed for something else. That money doesn't exist. It might be helpful if a council member, that is genuinely concerned about creating jobs, to stand up, be honest and make that fact clear and endorse the project. Without that false premise, there are no other arguments to be made, whether from a central Austin crackpot or otherwise. And without that premise, there is no leverage to demand more concessions. It's a very precarious game that the commissioners are playing.

[papertowelroll]

Generally I'm not in favor of Austin handing out big incentives for corporate campuses. That just isn't something we really need to do here. (growth is already arguably too fast)

Something that doesn't get enough coverage with Tesla specifically, though, is that these won't be run of the mill "tech jobs". These will mostly be manufacturing roles that are blue collar in nature. IMO it would be really nice for Austin to land these to help diversify the city and economy.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

While I appreciate the merits of that idea, I would argue that the weight and affect of the city council's endorsement would outweigh any potential of some crackpot from central Austin speaking out.

Again, every anti incentive argument I've heard thus far is premised on the idea that we have some kind of leverage because we're "handing over" existing tax payer money to Tesla. Some people seem to still be under the impression that the incentives are coming directly out of tax payer's pockets. That somehow if Tesla goes to Tusla, we can use the money instead to build roads and address inequity. There is no money if Tesla leaves. The money for the incentives comes from Tesla themselves. They pay their taxes in full and we rebate 80% of it back. It will in fact provide a net positive gain to the coffers, but if they go somewhere else, there is no incentive money to be repurposed for something else. That money doesn't exist. It might be helpful if a council member, that is genuinely concerned about creating jobs, to stand up, be honest and make that fact clear and endorse the project. Without that false premise, there are no other arguments to be made, whether from a central Austin crackpot or otherwise. And without that premise, there is no leverage to demand more concessions. It's a very precarious game that the commissioners are playing.

I mean, you're wrong. The lobbyist for the project (Suttle) knows what he's doing and they are stealing clear of Austin residents. The Travis County commissioners don't give a shit what the Austin city council thinks about anything. However, they would care if a bunch of citizens in the county started flooding their inbox with anti-incentive BS which they would if this was in city council or if the city drew attention to it by endorsing it.

TLDR: The people in charge of this deal know what they are doing.

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by freerover

I mean, you're wrong. The lobbyist for the project (Suttle) knows what he's doing and they are stealing clear of Austin residents. The Travis County commissioners don't give a shit what the Austin city council thinks about anything. However, they would care if a bunch of citizens in the county started flooding their inbox with anti-incentive BS which they would if this was in city council or if the city drew attention to it by endorsing it.

TLDR: The people in charge of this deal know what they are doing.

I'll take your word for it. You seem to have the inside sources in the Travis county office. Your earlier post remarking that the staff and Tesla expected a vote last week and Musk making his visit to Tulsa had me a little concerned. I'm not very proud of the reception they've gotten here in Austin compared to the reception they got in Tulsa.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

I'll take your word for it. You seem to have the inside sources in the Travis county office. Your earlier post remarking that the staff and Tesla expected a vote last week and Musk making his visit to Tulsa had me a little concerned. I'm not very proud of the reception they've gotten here in Austin compared to the reception they got in Tulsa.

Yea people in Tulsa are gaga and Austin be Austin. If we haven't heard any announcement by now I think Austin is good as long as the county passes is tomorrow. However, I have no idea what the status is on the Del Valley ISD proposal.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

So you're saying that the factory will zero effect on the city of Austin's economy, particularly southeast Austin which is Delia Garza's district? It doesn't warrant even a mention of an endorsement for the project from the council member who's district will be most impacted by addressing one of her main campaign issues in a very big way?

Incidentally it is in the city of Austin ETJ, which will require city of Austin involvement. They still need to get permitting from the city.

It’s not in the city of Austin and it’s looking like (unless the legislature changes the rules again) it will never be in the city of Austin.

The city shouldn’t interfere with an economic development deal in another jurisdiction, just like the Travis County commissioners _should_ be keeping their damn noses out of city business (MLS stadium, convention center).

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It’s not in the city of Austin and it’s looking like (unless the legislature changes the rules again) it will never be in the city of Austin.

The city shouldn’t interfere with an economic development deal in another jurisdiction, just like the Travis County commissioners _should_ be keeping their damn noses out of city business (MLS stadium, convention center).

https://www.statesman.com/business/2...is-county-site

Suttle, Tesla's local attorney, said Tesla will not be seeking incentives from the city of Austin. However, he said that, along with incentives from the Del Valle school district and Travis County, assurances of a "smooth permitting process at the city and county levels will be key in Tesla's decision to locate in Austin."

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

https://www.statesman.com/business/2...is-county-site

Which occurs purely on the staff level and over which council has no specific jurisdiction.

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It’s not in the city of Austin and it’s looking like (unless the legislature changes the rules again) it will never be in the city of Austin.

The city shouldn’t interfere with an economic development deal in another jurisdiction, just like the Travis County commissioners _should_ be keeping their damn noses out of city business (MLS stadium, convention center).

I'm not sure what you mean by interfering but I never said they should "interfere" with county proceedings. I just thought it curious and disheartening that the city council hasn't come out with a general statement of endorsement for the project, much like what State Rep Eddie Rodriguez did, albeit a somewhat tepid endorsement. He ended up perpetuating the confusion around the incentives.

While endorsing the project, I thought Garza might go one step further and clarify the mechanics of the incentives as a public service, if you will, since there's so much public confusion around these rebates. I know it's asking a lot from politicians who themselves despise corporate incentives of any form, but anyway that's what I was hoping.

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Which occurs purely on the staff level and over which council has no specific jurisdiction.

I think you're confusing yourself and conflating two separate points that I was trying to make. I never said council will be part of the permitting process. You stated earlier that this project is not part of the city. I pointed out incidentally that technically it is in the city of Austin ETJ, which means the city has limited jurisdiction and it can be eventually be annexed by the city. And since we're on the topic, you don't know for sure it won't require council involvement. If they're going to move as fast as anticipated, they may need variances that need council approval.

A separate point is that Garza should make the endorsement regardless of jurisdiction.

[We vs us]

I'll be honest, I had the same reaction during the HQ2 competition. Yes, in the end HQ2 was ultimately a boondoggle and it was good that we didn't win. At the same time, there seemed to me a big black hole where city enthusiasm should go. I'm not arguing for ridiculous PR stunts ("Let's rename the city Amazon, Texas!") but the city council and the mayor seemed to miss one opportunity after another to articulate what Austin might be with Amazon's partnership.

As a once and future salesperson, I promise you: selling something well is a pretty profound act of love and creation -- if you're worth your salt you know the thing you're selling inside and out, you know the high and low points, you know why --in the end -- it's the right thing for your client. On the spot you might have new insights, and suddenly be able to articulate value you or the client didn't know it had.

That Adler and The Council couldn't or wouldn't publicly articulate our value -- to Amazon or to anyone else -- seemed a huge failing to me. Why pass up a chance to tell the world on your terms why your city is amazing?

But I get it. At the time I chalked it up to him essentially throwing the game. Amazon was already starting to fumble the selection process, and the bankruptcy of it all was becoming clear. But now, with Tesla I'm not so sure. The situation is of course very different, and Travis County is in the driver's seat; but Adler and the Council are still missing out on that essential "salesmanship" aspect that is part of what is good city leadership.

Don't be obsequeous; don't be toadies. But be cordial and public and visible; let them know you're active stakeholders and have some interest. Most importantly, let US know that you're engaged here, even if it's only in the background.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I'll be honest, I had the same reaction during the HQ2 competition. Yes, in the end HQ2 was ultimately a boondoggle and it was good that we didn't win. At the same time, there seemed to me a big black hole where city enthusiasm should go. I'm not arguing for ridiculous PR stunts ("Let's rename the city Amazon, Texas!") but the city council and the mayor seemed to miss one opportunity after another to articulate what Austin might be with Amazon's partnership.

As a once and future salesperson, I promise you: selling something well is a pretty profound act of love and creation -- if you're worth your salt you know the thing you're selling inside and out, you know the high and low points, you know why --in the end -- it's the right thing for your client. On the spot you might have new insights, and suddenly be able to articulate value you or the client didn't know it had.

That Adler and The Council couldn't or wouldn't publicly articulate our value -- to Amazon or to anyone else -- seemed a huge failing to me. Why pass up a chance to tell the world on your terms why your city is amazing?

But I get it. At the time I chalked it up to him essentially throwing the game. Amazon was already starting to fumble the selection process, and the bankruptcy of it all was becoming clear. But now, with Tesla I'm not so sure. The situation is of course very different, and Travis County is in the driver's seat; but Adler and the Council are still missing out on that essential "salesmanship" aspect that is part of what is good city leadership.

Don't be obsequeous; don't be toadies. But be cordial and public and visible; let them know you're active stakeholders and have some interest. Most importantly, let US know that you're engaged here, even if it's only in the background.

It does not matter how good the message is or how infallible the facts are, you will always attract a very vocal opposition group for anything Austin city officials want to do. I guarantee you Richard Suttle (also the lobbyist from Austin FC) is trying to stay a billion miles away from any city official for this city deal. He knows what he is doing.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by freerover

It does not matter how good the message is or how infallible the facts are, you will always attract a very vocal opposition group for anything Austin city officials want to do. I guarantee you Richard Suttle (also the lobbyist from Austin FC) is trying to stay a billion miles away from any city official for this city deal. He knows what he is doing.

I definitely understand his MO. And maybe that's just the nature of our particular beast -- maybe our interest groups are just too loud, too negative to sway. At the same time, Adler and the Council are great at self talk in other arenas; I'm still fairly sure there's room for them to sharpen up their business development game, too.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

I think you're confusing yourself and conflating two separate points that I was trying to make. I never said council will be part of the permitting process. You stated earlier that this project is not part of the city. I pointed out incidentally that technically it is in the city of Austin ETJ, which means the city has limited jurisdiction and it can be eventually be annexed by the city.

To repeat myself, the changes to state law mean that it can't _just_ be annexed.

The fact that we've heard nothing about an annexation and development agreement (as the former Green project was pursuing) leads me to believe that Musk won't be pursuing one. That would mean in all likelihood this property would never be annexed (absent changes in state law).

Originally Posted by undergroundman

And since we're on the topic, you don't know for sure it won't require council involvement. If they're going to move as fast as anticipated, they may need variances that need council approval.

Variances to what? It's unzoned land.

They need a site plan.
If Tesla does solar (seems likely) they may not even tie into the grid, which would mean they don't even need electrical permits.

https://www.austintexas.gov/faq/how-...ts-city-austin

Originally Posted by undergroundman

A separate point is that Garza should make the endorsement regardless of jurisdiction.

Why are you so quick to assume that if council were to weigh in, that they'd be in favor of it?

It'll likely be a short term gain for Austin. But in the long term, perhaps council members might prefer a project (like Austin green) that leads to eventual annexation and/or leads to housing.