Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek
|
We're interpreting the word
equal in 2 different ways. Maybe I'm missing something.
If a city offers 1 billion dollars in incentives then the state will offer "equal" financial incentives which would be 1 billion dollars for a total of 2 billion.
If a city offers 0 dollars in incentives then than an equal state offer would be $0 for a total of nothing. How are you interpreting it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hookem
Ya'll need to calm down a bit.
|
GO TO HELL
Quote:
Originally Posted by hookem
If Amazon selects Austin for their HQ2, they will receive healthy incentives from both the city and the state.
The "bid" submitted by Austin will have said that. The wording isn't like "We promise to pay $X in incentives if you come to Austin"... It's more like, "Should Amazon choose Austin, they could expect an incentive package from the city in the range of ..." and reference how much Austin has paid for companies like Apple, Samsung, Merck, etc, for the number of jobs they brought. It's not technically a promise, it's a statement of reasonable expectation. Because no city employee has the authority to authorize those huge incentives on their own -- it has to go through a public process. I suspect it's the same with other cities. Amazon understands this.
|
Incentives from the City: Amazon knows Austin. They follow the local government. Anyone following the council in the last year understands the extreme opposition to corporate incentives and the drop in approvals. No one can feel confident that the city is going to offer Amazon incentives. It would be fiscally irresponsible for Amazon to pick Austin with so much uncertainty and negativity. It's extremely hard for me to believe that anyone who follows this council, listens to them deliberate and understanding of the issues could think there is anything close to a reasonable expectation. That's why Adler didn't say anything about it in his letter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hookem
If the city council truly had no intention of giving Amazon any incentives, they would have gone the route of other cities like San Antonio and not submitted a proposal.
|
There is a huge disconnect between the city council and the rest of city government and private groups that encourage city development. The council was populated by neighborhood activists because of how small the districts are and how they were gerrymandered to put power in neighborhoods. We could be having an entirely different discussion of the 8 district, 2 city wide council members and 1 Mayor system had the highest vote total.
As a result (this part is really opinion based), they skew toward emotion and not data. A huge consequence of this is the continued push to draw things out because they have an idea that taking longer to make a decision makes for a better decision. In reality, it does not take months of meetings to understand the issue and public opinion. That's what sample sizes are for. You don't even up with diverse opinions the longer you do it. You end up with the same opinions.
The rest of the city staff and supportive parties put a lot of progressive and well thought out data together and the council punts it (I'm convinced a few of them don't even read it or even consider it).
That being said, I totally agree with you that it is not the case that the city has no intention of giving Amazon incentives. What I'm saying is that the way they thing the system should be run to make sound decisions is impractical and inefficient and ultimately defeats the entire purpose of competing for projects. That's why I think the council wasn't consulted because they knew that the conversation and ultimate result of the discussion would be embarrassing to the bid and cast huge doubts about the proposal. Again, there were many meetings in the time of the Amazon announcement and bid date.
I think part of the problem here might be how people in Austin seem to be interpreting this proposal process. Amazon was extremely specific in the data that they wanted to see. It was categorical and measurable. This is not a first date. It's not a, "this could be good if you want to proceed." This was what it was explained to be. Show us what you are proposing so we can make the most responsible decision for our company. It's not responsible to accept so much risk in picking what was an incomplete bid over proposals that are much more fleshed out and practical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hookem
The much larger state incentive, on the other hand, CAN be authorized by a single person (like the governor or comptroller) without any voter input. They have that authority through funds like the TEF and METF/ETF. So the state's share of incentive money to Amazon could be more firmly promised in the bid. Like the comptroller did with F1, promising $250M over 10 years with a single letter.
|
Did you follow the ledge? The overwhelming dialog by both chambers is that corporate incentives should be done away with because they are corporate welfare and Texas doesn't need them. Both chambers chipped away at the fund that the Governor has for these projects significantly in their budgets. The senate specifically cut film/music incentives to 10 and the house did it to 0. In budget reconciliation, Abbot came in and got those numbers up. The point being that anyone who follows state government knows that incentives have been targeted for elimination.
All you have to do is follow the Texas budgets in the last 10 years to see the very clear trend when it comes to money for investments that are approvable without voter approval.
I think your example of F1 is a great example to look at. They have constantly been under fire since the grant. The state informed COTA in 2014 that it was reducing the amount from $25 million to $19.5 million. Groups in Austin tried to nix the Domain deal after it was agreed to and put it on the ballot and a city council member called for the possibility of canceling that to. None of this inspires confidence.
TLDR: Expecting to invest in heavily Texas and be given exemptions from taxes is an extremely risky investment and you can bet the financial advisors in Amazon have rankings for these relationships and Texas at the state and city level should have the biggest Flag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hookem
It's all about the parsing of the statements coming from the city -- no, the city council didn't promise any taxpayer dollars for Amazon. But the chamber and the city manager likely proposed an amount they could ask for and would probably receive.
Even the statement about the Atlanta "bid" is subject to parsing -
"The most aggressive economic attraction package that the state of Georgia has ever put forward" ... Doesn't necessarily mean that anything has actually been promised or agreed to by the state of Georgia or city of Atlanta; just that they have "put it forward". All potentially subject to the necessary approvals. Austin will have done the same.
|
Atlanta and Georgia have history on their side. They are the exact opposite of Austin and Texas. You have every reason to have faith in that pledge then you do the vague possibility of an agreement with Austin. It's crazy to even doubt Atlanta if you live in Austin considering the film industry is dead here and will never come back while Atlanta is a mini-los angeles. It was scary when their ledge passed a bathroom bill but their governor vetoed it because he understands how important their business relationships are.
Prev
Linear Mode
