Corporate welfare in action ....

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does $10 trillion in corporate tax credits give us a balanced budget?

Your source and link, please. You made no mention of the income and local taxes generated by those corporate tax incentives.

Your source and link, please.

OnePercenter's stupid plan to fix the economy.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

Corporate welfare in action ....

Translated into English, the government will pay all business expenses related to employees.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

At the above link, National Data, Section 2, Personal Income and Outlays, Table 2.1, Wages and Salaries (private industries) are almost $7 trillion.

 

[Slyhunter]

Ok give us all the details of this deal then and we will discuss.

Services would of course be things like municipal services. Do I really need to go into those AGAIN?

Yes, because I don't see any costs to a city when a business like Amazon moves in. They still need to plow the streets, they still need to maintain the streets, perhaps if an employee gets injured, they may need a rescue squad or something like that. But outside of emergency services which the company will seldom use, what costs to a city?

As for the details, they are not available right now. But what I do know is that Amazon will be paying more to the village than a pile of rocks.

Ok so then if there are no services to be paid for give the same deal to all corporations in the city. Wait you already said they can't afford to do that. So then there are obviously services to be paid for.

Ok so you are calling it a big win for the town without any details? You sound like a politician. I suspect by the time the details are released and not so good, things will be too far along...

Do you think this is new or something? CEO's and city leaders have been dealing with this issue for decades.

I never said there are no city services to be paid for, I said that the new company won't be generating a need for them.

I just showed you I would.

I'm on the same side as you on most issues, but you're wrong on this one. These tax abatement schemes are corporate welfare. Even if one state or city benefits from an individual case, when they all do it they are just playing beggar thy neighbor and they all get screwed. The taxpayers end up subsidizing certain favored corporations and screwing all the other businesses in the city.

Not really because the other businesses will not be affected. They will have the same business, pay the same taxes they've always paid, nothing will change for them.

What happens is the city gets a new tax revenue stream. That's good for everybody involved.

Those employed will be customers of other businesses.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, because I don't see any costs to a city when a business like Amazon moves in. They still need to plow the streets, they still need to maintain the streets, perhaps if an employee gets injured, they may need a rescue squad or something like that. But outside of emergency services which the company will seldom use, what costs to a city?

As for the details, they are not available right now. But what I do know is that Amazon will be paying more to the village than a pile of rocks.

Ok so then if there are no services to be paid for give the same deal to all corporations in the city. Wait you already said they can't afford to do that. So then there are obviously services to be paid for.

Ok so you are calling it a big win for the town without any details? You sound like a politician. I suspect by the time the details are released and not so good, things will be too far along...

Do you think this is new or something? CEO's and city leaders have been dealing with this issue for decades.

I never said there are no city services to be paid for, I said that the new company won't be generating a need for them.

I just showed you I would.

I'm on the same side as you on most issues, but you're wrong on this one. These tax abatement schemes are corporate welfare. Even if one state or city benefits from an individual case, when they all do it they are just playing beggar thy neighbor and they all get screwed. The taxpayers end up subsidizing certain favored corporations and screwing all the other businesses in the city.

Not really because the other businesses will not be affected. They will have the same business, pay the same taxes they've always paid, nothing will change for them.

What happens is the city gets a new tax revenue stream. That's good for everybody involved.

The other businesses are paying a higher tax rate because the newcomer is given a special deal. I don't even believe these deals are constitutional. When every city does it, then the net effect is no new tax revenue, because they've all screwed each other. Then the taxpayers end up subsidizing a privileged corporation. That's hardly what conservatives are supposed to stand for.

Existing businesses pay no more new taxes if a new business with an abatement moves in. Nobody's taxes are going to increase. If anything, their taxes will not increase because of the new taxes created by the new business.

Yes, it's a bid to the bottom. Cities and states compete for companies to move to their area by lower taxes. We've lost companies to other cities because they gave them a better offer than we could. On the other hand, we also gained companies because we put out the better offer.

 

[Brain357]

Ok so then if there are no services to be paid for give the same deal to all corporations in the city. Wait you already said they can't afford to do that. So then there are obviously services to be paid for.

Ok so you are calling it a big win for the town without any details? You sound like a politician. I suspect by the time the details are released and not so good, things will be too far along...

Do you think this is new or something? CEO's and city leaders have been dealing with this issue for decades.

I never said there are no city services to be paid for, I said that the new company won't be generating a need for them.

I just showed you I would.

I'm on the same side as you on most issues, but you're wrong on this one. These tax abatement schemes are corporate welfare. Even if one state or city benefits from an individual case, when they all do it they are just playing beggar thy neighbor and they all get screwed. The taxpayers end up subsidizing certain favored corporations and screwing all the other businesses in the city.

Not really because the other businesses will not be affected. They will have the same business, pay the same taxes they've always paid, nothing will change for them.

What happens is the city gets a new tax revenue stream. That's good for everybody involved.

The other businesses are paying a higher tax rate because the newcomer is given a special deal. I don't even believe these deals are constitutional. When every city does it, then the net effect is no new tax revenue, because they've all screwed each other. Then the taxpayers end up subsidizing a privileged corporation. That's hardly what conservatives are supposed to stand for.

Existing businesses pay no more new taxes if a new business with an abatement moves in. Nobody's taxes are going to increase. If anything, their taxes will not increase because of the new taxes created by the new business.

Yes, it's a bid to the bottom. Cities and states compete for companies to move to their area by lower taxes. We've lost companies to other cities because they gave them a better offer than we could. On the other hand, we also gained companies because we put out the better offer.

Tax payers lose. Services are not free. If one gets a sweet deal the money to cover their services have to come from somewhere.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you think this is new or something? CEO's and city leaders have been dealing with this issue for decades.

I never said there are no city services to be paid for, I said that the new company won't be generating a need for them.

I just showed you I would.

I'm on the same side as you on most issues, but you're wrong on this one. These tax abatement schemes are corporate welfare. Even if one state or city benefits from an individual case, when they all do it they are just playing beggar thy neighbor and they all get screwed. The taxpayers end up subsidizing certain favored corporations and screwing all the other businesses in the city.

Not really because the other businesses will not be affected. They will have the same business, pay the same taxes they've always paid, nothing will change for them.

What happens is the city gets a new tax revenue stream. That's good for everybody involved.

The other businesses are paying a higher tax rate because the newcomer is given a special deal. I don't even believe these deals are constitutional. When every city does it, then the net effect is no new tax revenue, because they've all screwed each other. Then the taxpayers end up subsidizing a privileged corporation. That's hardly what conservatives are supposed to stand for.

Existing businesses pay no more new taxes if a new business with an abatement moves in. Nobody's taxes are going to increase. If anything, their taxes will not increase because of the new taxes created by the new business.

Yes, it's a bid to the bottom. Cities and states compete for companies to move to their area by lower taxes. We've lost companies to other cities because they gave them a better offer than we could. On the other hand, we also gained companies because we put out the better offer.

Tax payers lose. Services are not free. If one gets a sweet deal the money to cover their services have to come from somewhere.

They do: from the new taxes generated by the new business.

I don't know where you get this notion from that a business that gets an abatement pays no taxes at all. If that were the case, the city would not offer them an abatement.

 

[Brain357]

Ok so then if there are no services to be paid for give the same deal to all corporations in the city. Wait you already said they can't afford to do that. So then there are obviously services to be paid for.

Ok so you are calling it a big win for the town without any details? You sound like a politician. I suspect by the time the details are released and not so good, things will be too far along...

Do you think this is new or something? CEO's and city leaders have been dealing with this issue for decades.

I never said there are no city services to be paid for, I said that the new company won't be generating a need for them.

I just showed you I would.

I'm on the same side as you on most issues, but you're wrong on this one. These tax abatement schemes are corporate welfare. Even if one state or city benefits from an individual case, when they all do it they are just playing beggar thy neighbor and they all get screwed. The taxpayers end up subsidizing certain favored corporations and screwing all the other businesses in the city.

Not really because the other businesses will not be affected. They will have the same business, pay the same taxes they've always paid, nothing will change for them.

What happens is the city gets a new tax revenue stream. That's good for everybody involved.

The other businesses are paying a higher tax rate because the newcomer is given a special deal. I don't even believe these deals are constitutional. When every city does it, then the net effect is no new tax revenue, because they've all screwed each other. Then the taxpayers end up subsidizing a privileged corporation. That's hardly what conservatives are supposed to stand for.

Existing businesses pay no more new taxes if a new business with an abatement moves in. Nobody's taxes are going to increase. If anything, their taxes will not increase because of the new taxes created by the new business.

Yes, it's a bid to the bottom. Cities and states compete for companies to move to their area by lower taxes. We've lost companies to other cities because they gave them a better offer than we could. On the other hand, we also gained companies because we put out the better offer.

Amazon.com fulfillment center planned in North Randall, on former mall site, bringing 1,200 jobs

The project popped up on the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority board's agenda on Thursday morning. The board approved a request to provide up to $123 million worth of bond financing for the project, which could open during the second half of 2018.

So they are borrowing to fund this...

 

[bripat9643]

Ok so then if there are no services to be paid for give the same deal to all corporations in the city. Wait you already said they can't afford to do that. So then there are obviously services to be paid for.

Ok so you are calling it a big win for the town without any details? You sound like a politician. I suspect by the time the details are released and not so good, things will be too far along...

Do you think this is new or something? CEO's and city leaders have been dealing with this issue for decades.

I never said there are no city services to be paid for, I said that the new company won't be generating a need for them.

I just showed you I would.

I'm on the same side as you on most issues, but you're wrong on this one. These tax abatement schemes are corporate welfare. Even if one state or city benefits from an individual case, when they all do it they are just playing beggar thy neighbor and they all get screwed. The taxpayers end up subsidizing certain favored corporations and screwing all the other businesses in the city.

Not really because the other businesses will not be affected. They will have the same business, pay the same taxes they've always paid, nothing will change for them.

What happens is the city gets a new tax revenue stream. That's good for everybody involved.

The other businesses are paying a higher tax rate because the newcomer is given a special deal. I don't even believe these deals are constitutional. When every city does it, then the net effect is no new tax revenue, because they've all screwed each other. Then the taxpayers end up subsidizing a privileged corporation. That's hardly what conservatives are supposed to stand for.

Existing businesses pay no more new taxes if a new business with an abatement moves in. Nobody's taxes are going to increase. If anything, their taxes will not increase because of the new taxes created by the new business.

Yes, it's a bid to the bottom. Cities and states compete for companies to move to their area by lower taxes. We've lost companies to other cities because they gave them a better offer than we could. On the other hand, we also gained companies because we put out the better offer.

So the net benefit to you is negative. You make my case.

 

[Brain357]

I just showed you I would.

I'm on the same side as you on most issues, but you're wrong on this one. These tax abatement schemes are corporate welfare. Even if one state or city benefits from an individual case, when they all do it they are just playing beggar thy neighbor and they all get screwed. The taxpayers end up subsidizing certain favored corporations and screwing all the other businesses in the city.

Not really because the other businesses will not be affected. They will have the same business, pay the same taxes they've always paid, nothing will change for them.

What happens is the city gets a new tax revenue stream. That's good for everybody involved.

The other businesses are paying a higher tax rate because the newcomer is given a special deal. I don't even believe these deals are constitutional. When every city does it, then the net effect is no new tax revenue, because they've all screwed each other. Then the taxpayers end up subsidizing a privileged corporation. That's hardly what conservatives are supposed to stand for.

Existing businesses pay no more new taxes if a new business with an abatement moves in. Nobody's taxes are going to increase. If anything, their taxes will not increase because of the new taxes created by the new business.

Yes, it's a bid to the bottom. Cities and states compete for companies to move to their area by lower taxes. We've lost companies to other cities because they gave them a better offer than we could. On the other hand, we also gained companies because we put out the better offer.

Tax payers lose. Services are not free. If one gets a sweet deal the money to cover their services have to come from somewhere.

They do: from the new taxes generated by the new business.

I don't know where you get this notion from that a business that gets an abatement pays no taxes at all. If that were the case, the city would not offer them an abatement.

Have you not seen all the examples I have posted? They pay nothing or very little with hopes the city will make up for it later. When later comes around they extort the city for another deal because they don't want to lose the jobs. End result they never really pay.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you think this is new or something? CEO's and city leaders have been dealing with this issue for decades.

I never said there are no city services to be paid for, I said that the new company won't be generating a need for them.

I just showed you I would.

I'm on the same side as you on most issues, but you're wrong on this one. These tax abatement schemes are corporate welfare. Even if one state or city benefits from an individual case, when they all do it they are just playing beggar thy neighbor and they all get screwed. The taxpayers end up subsidizing certain favored corporations and screwing all the other businesses in the city.

Not really because the other businesses will not be affected. They will have the same business, pay the same taxes they've always paid, nothing will change for them.

What happens is the city gets a new tax revenue stream. That's good for everybody involved.

The other businesses are paying a higher tax rate because the newcomer is given a special deal. I don't even believe these deals are constitutional. When every city does it, then the net effect is no new tax revenue, because they've all screwed each other. Then the taxpayers end up subsidizing a privileged corporation. That's hardly what conservatives are supposed to stand for.

Existing businesses pay no more new taxes if a new business with an abatement moves in. Nobody's taxes are going to increase. If anything, their taxes will not increase because of the new taxes created by the new business.

Yes, it's a bid to the bottom. Cities and states compete for companies to move to their area by lower taxes. We've lost companies to other cities because they gave them a better offer than we could. On the other hand, we also gained companies because we put out the better offer.

So the net benefit to you is negative. You make my case.

Me personally? It doesn't matter one way or the other. However if I couldn't find a job and was hired by the new company, of course it would benefit me.

My suburb came after us taxpayers to make up for the losses they took when some of our businesses moved out. In a suburb about ten miles from my house, they never had any property tax collections from the residents years ago because businesses paid all the taxes to the city. When they left, the residents were hit with new taxes they never had to pay before.

Businesses benefit any community. And if they get an abatement to do that, the city or state will offer them that advantage so they and their residents can benefit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you think this is new or something? CEO's and city leaders have been dealing with this issue for decades.

I never said there are no city services to be paid for, I said that the new company won't be generating a need for them.

I just showed you I would.

I'm on the same side as you on most issues, but you're wrong on this one. These tax abatement schemes are corporate welfare. Even if one state or city benefits from an individual case, when they all do it they are just playing beggar thy neighbor and they all get screwed. The taxpayers end up subsidizing certain favored corporations and screwing all the other businesses in the city.

Not really because the other businesses will not be affected. They will have the same business, pay the same taxes they've always paid, nothing will change for them.

What happens is the city gets a new tax revenue stream. That's good for everybody involved.

The other businesses are paying a higher tax rate because the newcomer is given a special deal. I don't even believe these deals are constitutional. When every city does it, then the net effect is no new tax revenue, because they've all screwed each other. Then the taxpayers end up subsidizing a privileged corporation. That's hardly what conservatives are supposed to stand for.

Existing businesses pay no more new taxes if a new business with an abatement moves in. Nobody's taxes are going to increase. If anything, their taxes will not increase because of the new taxes created by the new business.

Yes, it's a bid to the bottom. Cities and states compete for companies to move to their area by lower taxes. We've lost companies to other cities because they gave them a better offer than we could. On the other hand, we also gained companies because we put out the better offer.

Amazon.com fulfillment center planned in North Randall, on former mall site, bringing 1,200 jobs

The project popped up on the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority board's agenda on Thursday morning. The board approved a request to provide up to $123 million worth of bond financing for the project, which could open during the second half of 2018.

So they are borrowing to fund this...

Thanks for the link.

David Smith, North Randall's longtime mayor, expressed cautious optimism during an interview after Thursday's port board meeting. He stressed that the fulfillment-center deal is far from done.......


Smith said the village doesn't have cash to put into the Amazon deal. But the village could grant partial property-tax abatement for the new building.

Sounds okay to me.

Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., an Atlanta-based developer that has worked on other projects for Amazon, has a contract to buy the North Randall site, David Riefe, the company's senior vice president for the Midwest, said during Thursday's port board meeting. The properties belong to multiple owners today.

A site plan shows the location and orientation of a proposed Amazon.com fulfillment center in North Randall, on 69 acres of the former Randall Park Mall site.Port of Cleveland


The developer plans to raze the existing buildings - a shuttered Burlington Coat Factory store, a closed automotive-maintenance facility and a former department store occupied by Ohio Technical College's PowerSport Institute, which would relocate.

Seefried expects to construct a $177 million facility and lease it to Amazon, which has more than 70 such fulfillment centers across the country

Still good.

The project popped up on the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority board's agenda on Thursday morning. The board approved a request to provide up to $123 million worth of bond financing for the project, which could open during the second half of 2018.

Unclear what the Port Authority is using the money for. Maybe lending to Seefried Industrial Properties?
Sounds a bit like buying a stadium for a sports team.

Thumbs down.

 

[Brain357]

I just showed you I would.

I'm on the same side as you on most issues, but you're wrong on this one. These tax abatement schemes are corporate welfare. Even if one state or city benefits from an individual case, when they all do it they are just playing beggar thy neighbor and they all get screwed. The taxpayers end up subsidizing certain favored corporations and screwing all the other businesses in the city.

Not really because the other businesses will not be affected. They will have the same business, pay the same taxes they've always paid, nothing will change for them.

What happens is the city gets a new tax revenue stream. That's good for everybody involved.

The other businesses are paying a higher tax rate because the newcomer is given a special deal. I don't even believe these deals are constitutional. When every city does it, then the net effect is no new tax revenue, because they've all screwed each other. Then the taxpayers end up subsidizing a privileged corporation. That's hardly what conservatives are supposed to stand for.

Existing businesses pay no more new taxes if a new business with an abatement moves in. Nobody's taxes are going to increase. If anything, their taxes will not increase because of the new taxes created by the new business.

Yes, it's a bid to the bottom. Cities and states compete for companies to move to their area by lower taxes. We've lost companies to other cities because they gave them a better offer than we could. On the other hand, we also gained companies because we put out the better offer.

Amazon.com fulfillment center planned in North Randall, on former mall site, bringing 1,200 jobs

The project popped up on the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority board's agenda on Thursday morning. The board approved a request to provide up to $123 million worth of bond financing for the project, which could open during the second half of 2018.

So they are borrowing to fund this...

Thanks for the link.

David Smith, North Randall's longtime mayor, expressed cautious optimism during an interview after Thursday's port board meeting. He stressed that the fulfillment-center deal is far from done.......


Smith said the village doesn't have cash to put into the Amazon deal. But the village could grant partial property-tax abatement for the new building.

Sounds okay to me.

Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., an Atlanta-based developer that has worked on other projects for Amazon, has a contract to buy the North Randall site, David Riefe, the company's senior vice president for the Midwest, said during Thursday's port board meeting. The properties belong to multiple owners today.

A site plan shows the location and orientation of a proposed Amazon.com fulfillment center in North Randall, on 69 acres of the former Randall Park Mall site.Port of Cleveland


The developer plans to raze the existing buildings - a shuttered Burlington Coat Factory store, a closed automotive-maintenance facility and a former department store occupied by Ohio Technical College's PowerSport Institute, which would relocate.

Seefried expects to construct a $177 million facility and lease it to Amazon, which has more than 70 such fulfillment centers across the country

Still good.

The project popped up on the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority board's agenda on Thursday morning. The board approved a request to provide up to $123 million worth of bond financing for the project, which could open during the second half of 2018.

Unclear what the Port Authority is using the money for. Maybe lending to Seefried Industrial Properties?
Sounds a bit like buying a stadium for a sports team.

Thumbs down.

Seems like a really big thumbs down to me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not really because the other businesses will not be affected. They will have the same business, pay the same taxes they've always paid, nothing will change for them.

What happens is the city gets a new tax revenue stream. That's good for everybody involved.

The other businesses are paying a higher tax rate because the newcomer is given a special deal. I don't even believe these deals are constitutional. When every city does it, then the net effect is no new tax revenue, because they've all screwed each other. Then the taxpayers end up subsidizing a privileged corporation. That's hardly what conservatives are supposed to stand for.

Existing businesses pay no more new taxes if a new business with an abatement moves in. Nobody's taxes are going to increase. If anything, their taxes will not increase because of the new taxes created by the new business.

Yes, it's a bid to the bottom. Cities and states compete for companies to move to their area by lower taxes. We've lost companies to other cities because they gave them a better offer than we could. On the other hand, we also gained companies because we put out the better offer.

Amazon.com fulfillment center planned in North Randall, on former mall site, bringing 1,200 jobs

The project popped up on the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority board's agenda on Thursday morning. The board approved a request to provide up to $123 million worth of bond financing for the project, which could open during the second half of 2018.

So they are borrowing to fund this...

Thanks for the link.

David Smith, North Randall's longtime mayor, expressed cautious optimism during an interview after Thursday's port board meeting. He stressed that the fulfillment-center deal is far from done.......


Smith said the village doesn't have cash to put into the Amazon deal. But the village could grant partial property-tax abatement for the new building.

Sounds okay to me.

Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., an Atlanta-based developer that has worked on other projects for Amazon, has a contract to buy the North Randall site, David Riefe, the company's senior vice president for the Midwest, said during Thursday's port board meeting. The properties belong to multiple owners today.

A site plan shows the location and orientation of a proposed Amazon.com fulfillment center in North Randall, on 69 acres of the former Randall Park Mall site.Port of Cleveland


The developer plans to raze the existing buildings - a shuttered Burlington Coat Factory store, a closed automotive-maintenance facility and a former department store occupied by Ohio Technical College's PowerSport Institute, which would relocate.

Seefried expects to construct a $177 million facility and lease it to Amazon, which has more than 70 such fulfillment centers across the country

Still good.

The project popped up on the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority board's agenda on Thursday morning. The board approved a request to provide up to $123 million worth of bond financing for the project, which could open during the second half of 2018.

Unclear what the Port Authority is using the money for. Maybe lending to Seefried Industrial Properties?
Sounds a bit like buying a stadium for a sports team.

Thumbs down.

Seems like a really big thumbs down to me.

Thumbs up for the town.
Thumbs down for the Port Authority.

 

[Slyhunter]

Why doesn't Amazon buy the property instead of leasing it?

 

[Brain357]

The other businesses are paying a higher tax rate because the newcomer is given a special deal. I don't even believe these deals are constitutional. When every city does it, then the net effect is no new tax revenue, because they've all screwed each other. Then the taxpayers end up subsidizing a privileged corporation. That's hardly what conservatives are supposed to stand for.

Existing businesses pay no more new taxes if a new business with an abatement moves in. Nobody's taxes are going to increase. If anything, their taxes will not increase because of the new taxes created by the new business.

Yes, it's a bid to the bottom. Cities and states compete for companies to move to their area by lower taxes. We've lost companies to other cities because they gave them a better offer than we could. On the other hand, we also gained companies because we put out the better offer.

Amazon.com fulfillment center planned in North Randall, on former mall site, bringing 1,200 jobs

The project popped up on the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority board's agenda on Thursday morning. The board approved a request to provide up to $123 million worth of bond financing for the project, which could open during the second half of 2018.

So they are borrowing to fund this...

Thanks for the link.

David Smith, North Randall's longtime mayor, expressed cautious optimism during an interview after Thursday's port board meeting. He stressed that the fulfillment-center deal is far from done.......


Smith said the village doesn't have cash to put into the Amazon deal. But the village could grant partial property-tax abatement for the new building.

Sounds okay to me.

Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., an Atlanta-based developer that has worked on other projects for Amazon, has a contract to buy the North Randall site, David Riefe, the company's senior vice president for the Midwest, said during Thursday's port board meeting. The properties belong to multiple owners today.

A site plan shows the location and orientation of a proposed Amazon.com fulfillment center in North Randall, on 69 acres of the former Randall Park Mall site.Port of Cleveland


The developer plans to raze the existing buildings - a shuttered Burlington Coat Factory store, a closed automotive-maintenance facility and a former department store occupied by Ohio Technical College's PowerSport Institute, which would relocate.

Seefried expects to construct a $177 million facility and lease it to Amazon, which has more than 70 such fulfillment centers across the country

Still good.

The project popped up on the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority board's agenda on Thursday morning. The board approved a request to provide up to $123 million worth of bond financing for the project, which could open during the second half of 2018.

Unclear what the Port Authority is using the money for. Maybe lending to Seefried Industrial Properties?
Sounds a bit like buying a stadium for a sports team.

Thumbs down.

Seems like a really big thumbs down to me.

Thumbs up for the town.
Thumbs down for the Port Authority.

I assume they are providing the bonds to the town. I don't see how taking on debt is a thumbs up.

 

[Brain357]

Why doesn't Amazon buy the property instead of leasing it?

It will be easier to extort the town later if they can easily move.

 

[Brain357]

The new business is using .6 million in services.

Utter bull. Nobody would give tax abatements if that were true.

You can dispute the exact amount all you like, but the fact is that a huge new business would be imposing a significant additional cost on city and state government. Just the additional traffic would be a significant additional cost.

And you don't think the city or state had that figured out when they made the offer? What are those additional costs? A new stoplight or two, perhaps an additional lane to a main road?

Thousands of additional cars that inflict wear and tear on the roads, plus the additional personnel needed to police them.

No, cars do not do all that much damage to the roads. Up here, it's mostly the snow and ice. The new Amazon will be built on Route 8 which already has trucks on it. Plus when the North Randall Mall was built, they built the roads wide enough to handle heavy traffic. After all, during it's day, North Randall Mall was the largest mall in the country, and people from all over the country to shop there.

Why are they borrowing $123 million if there are no additional services?

 

[eagle1462010]

Home | Good Jobs First

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/megadeals_prrel.pdf

Inside Nevada’s $1.3 billion gamble on Tesla

fyi sites

 

[Brain357]

Home | Good Jobs First

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/megadeals_prrel.pdf

Inside Nevada’s $1.3 billion gamble on Tesla

fyi sites

Thanks, from your link:
Over the next 20 years, Tesla could take in nearly $1.3 billion in tax benefits for building its Gigafactory in Nevada, according to projections from the state, as hires are made for the factory locally and from around the country. Assuming Tesla meets its obligations under the deal, it will spend 20 years free from sales tax, and 10 years free from property tax, while it receives millions of dollars more in tax credits.

Sounds like no tax paying to me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Utter bull. Nobody would give tax abatements if that were true.

You can dispute the exact amount all you like, but the fact is that a huge new business would be imposing a significant additional cost on city and state government. Just the additional traffic would be a significant additional cost.

And you don't think the city or state had that figured out when they made the offer? What are those additional costs? A new stoplight or two, perhaps an additional lane to a main road?

Thousands of additional cars that inflict wear and tear on the roads, plus the additional personnel needed to police them.

No, cars do not do all that much damage to the roads. Up here, it's mostly the snow and ice. The new Amazon will be built on Route 8 which already has trucks on it. Plus when the North Randall Mall was built, they built the roads wide enough to handle heavy traffic. After all, during it's day, North Randall Mall was the largest mall in the country, and people from all over the country to shop there.

Why are they borrowing $123 million if there are no additional services?

I would think if you are going to build a structure that's going to occupy nearly 70 acres of land, a loan might be needed. As long as it's paid back, no harm. It's just one more instance of what cities and states will do to lure businesses to their area.

 

[Brain357]

You can dispute the exact amount all you like, but the fact is that a huge new business would be imposing a significant additional cost on city and state government. Just the additional traffic would be a significant additional cost.

And you don't think the city or state had that figured out when they made the offer? What are those additional costs? A new stoplight or two, perhaps an additional lane to a main road?

Thousands of additional cars that inflict wear and tear on the roads, plus the additional personnel needed to police them.

No, cars do not do all that much damage to the roads. Up here, it's mostly the snow and ice. The new Amazon will be built on Route 8 which already has trucks on it. Plus when the North Randall Mall was built, they built the roads wide enough to handle heavy traffic. After all, during it's day, North Randall Mall was the largest mall in the country, and people from all over the country to shop there.

Why are they borrowing $123 million if there are no additional services?

I would think if you are going to build a structure that's going to occupy nearly 70 acres of land, a loan might be needed. As long as it's paid back, no harm. It's just one more instance of what cities and states will do to lure businesses to their area.

So there is $123 million plus interest worth of services. You said there was no additional costs Ray.