Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasatch_One
it's interesting how these large tech companies prefer low to mid-rise office buildings:
Google
Apple's soon to be HQ (that looks like the Hale Bopp spaceship, if you ask me)
Yahoo!
Facebook (current or future, I couldn't tell)
|
So Utah throws in $40 million as part of an incentive package for Adobe. I realize most every state does this, so I don't have a problem with it. But why not make part of the incentive contingent upon the company locating in an area with a few different travel mode options.
I imagine Adobe's going to employ a bunch of relatively young people who would be happy to take transit or bike/walk to work. But the location of this building and its distance from transit facilities insures that virtually everybody will have to drive, burdening the road network and contributing to air quality problems.
Of course, Adobe has the right to build where ever they'd like, but if we're going to be giving them taxpayer funds, doesn't it make sense to make at least part of that funding contingent upon building in a transportation-efficient location?