Quote:
Originally Posted by Denver
I think you are blowing this out of context. This applies to one specific government program, the Regional Tourism Act. The benefits of this Act are set to expire after the next round of funding. The Act requires that local governments provide reliable economic data demonstrating that, in the absence of State Sales Tax Increment Revenue, the project is not reasonably anticipated to be developed within the foreseeable future. The issue with the project is whether it complies with the law. This is not a business issue as you are trying to portray but rather a legal issue. The state government has to comply with state law regardless of the potential negative impact of doing so (and I know a district court drug has already ruled on this but that is on appeal so there is not point in diving into that issue right now).
|
Probably or maybe not.
When politicians want to muddy the water they can always come up with "reasons." Honorable sounding reasons at that, even if their motivation and intent is anything but. What's honorable is to stick to your word; honor your commitments.
When Arizona (or Texas) negotiates an undisclosed incentive deal with Apple for their $2 billion flagship "Command and Control Center" I might have other questions but I wouldn't question the message sent loud and clear that "This state is open for business."
How is "the issue" (as you put it) determined and decided. I think there was a process for this and the vote was 7-2 that the project qualified and merited the incentive. Who are these Johnny-Come-Latelies that seem so clueless?
As much as I liked the Pueblo project I'm not sure how much tourism it will really bring. I can't think of a better project idea that has come up that fits the whole purpose of the RTA as well as Gaylord does. With the delays and presumed construction cost escalation as a result I'd think the incentive is even more justified today than when it was approved.
Threaded Mode