[JayCT]

Originally Posted by JViello

Why didn't VW choose CT? Why didn't Nissan? Why not BMW? Why not Hyundai? Why do most of the "headquarters" here expand elsewhere?

Reality and theory are two very different places.

Part of the reason is Connecticut does not have the land available to build these types of facilities. You need a good couple of hundred acres with good highway access and utilities ready to go for this and we just don't have it. Rentchler Field in East Hartford has t6he land but the developers are planning something different. There are a few peices up by Bradley but the better ones are developed already (Walgreens Distribution Center). Jay

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Part of the reason is Connecticut does not have the land available to build these types of facilities. You need a good couple of hundred acres with good highway access ...

Good point.

If good highway access is a criterion, Connecticut will never be chosen.

[JayCT]

It is hard to compete with a site that has a couple of hundred acres of flat open vacant land on a highway that has no traffic and an interchange just waiting to be filled with traffic. That is why you do not see these mega developments in the northeast. Even tax friendly New Hampshire doesn't have this type of property. If it did, you would see these developments heading there. Jay

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by JViello

Oh, it's dumb eh? Soooo...why DID they choose Stamford? Hmmm.

Oh! I know! Because of tax incentives and costs of operations compared to NYC. In otherwords, the very conversation we are having now that you say doesn't exist.

BTW:

Knoxville, TN - UBS Financial Services Inc.

Just sayin.

Moderately true, but its' not a game CT can play often. We pay for our own stuff. Last budget cycle Federal Spending reached 25% of our budget... a complete rarity. In the places you mention, it got bumped to 50% by and large, and 25% is the norm. And again, the growth rates were nothing spectacular in those areas and certainly aren't now with almost any gain wiped out by the Recession.

Originally Posted by JViello

Hmmm, and you can't make the connection as to why companies here are downsizing and elsewhere they are not? Really?

First off, these are contracts. Employers and employees both come to the table. Just means those companies are likely heavily underpaying someone else, which by the way tends to mean less productivity. There is rarely a free lunch, and if there is it doesn't last too long.

I can't see why a lot of American working families lost income and PPP whereas in CT they did not. Poverty in America got worse, except a few states. Guess which ones. ALSO, maybe CT companies aren't laying off people in the other areas, but native industries happen to be.

JayCT,

Absolutely correct. Also the big banks made a huge bet on the low cost states, so getting a line of credit or mortgage to start something here was a nightmare (..Edit.. and by low cost states I mean they made bigger loans to fewer people, aka the mega development. Part of this was logistical, part of it was ideological). CT can only help itself by helping municipalities create a less rigid zoning code, and clearing up who has liability for a brownfield.

~Cheers

[bobtn]

Land issue-Jay, may explain Ct, but do only RTW states have land? Seriously, of the last several transplants, all the true finalists were RTW. These corps worked with Relo firms to come uo with short lists, and RTWs dominated every list. Common Denominators: Besides land, NO UAW, inexpensive kilowatt costs, low property taxes after the abatement (mill rates low!), PLUS good highway access.

BTW, the Nissan Smyrna, Tn plant footprint is not nearly as large as VW (been in and around it many times), and land could have been found in almost any state for that one. The Kia site in Georgia is also smaller than the new VW site (wouldn't take much more than the vacant, unused GE Boston Ave/adjacent streets they built on region mfg land mass of Bridgeport to handle it). As for VW, they are already examining a 2nd equally big product line to add to one they are building site for. That's why they wanted MORE land. Mind you, first product line ,with supplier jobs, will be in the neighborhood of an 8k full-time net job affect.

In early 90s, Bridgeport had found enough land with direct access to I-95 to woo Steve Wynn for a 10,000 employee casino..suppose they might have had a few acres (few-LOL?) available for that! It was old, abandoned manufacturing land (multiple abandoned sites), perfectly suitable for industrial as well as casino applications. But Relo decisions for mfg almost always end up excluding closed shop states.

[bobtn]

"Bobtn,

You don't see an issue where a $86m giveaway is used to lure in a company? "

When its $86 mill of unused land, nope. Already VW suppliers are being added which will employ thousands within 1 year, pay millions in taxes apiece, and that dynamic ratio of several supplier jobs per direct mfg job is the ROI I adore. Its something only manufacturing can provide. Unlike moving a Westchester County corp to Stamford, its NEW job creation, not people from a nearby county just over 1 state line doing a reverse commute.

Our ex-gov, being an ex business exec, offered deals that were mainly partial abatements and unused land, with only a small percentage of the total cost being actual cash out of pocket, and NEVER any deals for suppliers.

That's why every states economic development team should only woo corps who are out of driving range for existing employees. The goal should be job creation, not just grand list creation. Most of the Westchester County relos failed to create new Ct jobs, thus the 1990-2011 job stagnation persists. sad.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Land issue-Jay, may explain Ct, but do only RTW states have land? Seriously, of the last several transplants, all the true finalists were RTW.

Yes. They have more greenfields.

Originally Posted by bobtn

BTW, the Nissan Smyrna, Tn plant footprint is not nearly as large as VW (been in and around it many times), and land could have been found in almost any state for that one. The Kia site in Georgia is also smaller than the new VW site (wouldn't take much more than the vacant, unused GE land mass of Bridgeport to handle it).

Exactly! Do you know what it would cost to bring the land under the old GE plant on Boston Ave to working order?? A huge portion of that is the City and State have been locked trying to get the polluters of these properties to pay, with minimal success (the GE plant on Boston Ave finally will be demolished piece by piece, but the ground is saturated with so many carcinogens it makes the head spin).

Personally I think the State should take the loss and rehabilitate a few of these parcels itself, that's prime commercial space that can be used (it has its' own train-track spur. Don't know the condition of it though). Lease out new facilities at slightly below market rates.

Originally Posted by bobtn

Most of the Westchester County relos failed to create new Ct jobs, thus the 1990-2011 job stagnation persists. sad.

Again, that's only by the employer survey. There has been job growth though.

~Cheers

[bobtn]

JViello:"I'll reiterate what I wrote in another thread regarding the Hartford region.

Hartford from 1950 to 1990 grew 185%. Why 3% in the last 20 years? Charlotte was exactly the same size as Hartford in 1990, but was half the size in 1950, it just kept on growing...Hartford did not. (We are talking metros here not city limits.) Charlotte is now almost twice the size of Hartford.

The last 20 years nothing has developed forward that was not partially or wholly state funded. I'm not sure what part of that is not clear.

As for the corporations being here...we are losing them slowly, and frankly don't be fooled by where they are incorporated. Point in case, UTC has about 207,000 employees and 26,000 in CT with that number shrinking, NOT expanding. GE is building a nice new commercial engine plant in NC. Why not CT where it's headquartered? Hmmm.

Travelers has 32,000 employees, with only 5600 in CT.

The Hartford has 30,000 employees with 11,000 in CT, and a large expanded campus in...Charlotte

Aetna has about 34,000 employees with less than 6500 here. (And shrinking)"

Your post bore repeating, and 185 pct in 40 years should be the norm. Using law of 72s, that's a 40 year simple rate of 134% or so (1.85 times 72), or 3.3 percent per year.. a reasonable, and should be sustainable rate of increase. Clearly, something went terribly wrong the last 22 years to cause corps to seek greener pastures. It does not have to stay that way, but they do need to be convinced things will be different, as obviously, they, like UTC and AETNA per statements released, view it as an unfriendly climate for business.

That's what the Walkers, Cuomos, and Christies are about changing. DM-not sure he admits the problem, or has the gumption to fix it. Time will tell.

[bobtn]

Beeker, They were going to clear and clean acreage for Wynn equal to an mid-size (think Nissan) auto plant. What is the difference-same EPA regs for both. Can't not clean casino land first-illegal.

PS, The reason GE land will NEVER be cleared, and VW Chattanooga required some land to be cleaned, as they did use some previously used land, is NO ONE is calling Ct Economic Development Board asking for supersites. They are NOT interested. Why no calls-there, I gave you the critical question to ask? You'd like to see it cleared, it would look real pretty, and be just as vacant, in 2021, 2031, 2041, etc. GE is insourcing various offshore production (and CEO wants more of that in decades to come), but looking at no sites in a state they are headquarted in. They are even adding 500 jobs in mfg in upstate NY.

In final meeting with Nissan when hq move was being studied with many candidates for relo including Michigan (auto engineers galore), our ex-gov who detailed the meeting said he told their worldwide CEO, "You trusted us for your mfg, which worked out well. Why not your hq"? DM should be asking GE's CEO the reverse, "You said you want to insource stuff now in Asia. You used to employ thousands in Bridgeport, and we had over 300k mfg jobs at one point, so you know we can do it. Why are you not considering us"?

[JViello]

Originally Posted by bobtn

"That's why every states economic development team should only woo corps who are out of driving range for existing employees. The goal should be job creation, not just grand list creation. Most of the Westchester County relos failed to create new Ct jobs, thus the 1990-2011 job stagnation persists. sad.

Starwood hotels is the poster child. They are just moving up the road to CT because we dropped our pants and as admitted by Starwood, we are basically paying for their rent for the next 10 or whatever years.

No job creation. Oh, I'm sure the deli on the corner will get more busy, but lets get real here.