[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

How 150 years? Much of the money is infrastructure related, that future corps and Boston will share the benefits of.


This, like all deals, has a minority in cash incentives.

Mehh I'm not sold on that, we'll have to see how it plays out. But there was a $25MM tax abatement from Boston directly, that alone would be 25 years in Fairfield. But as you know I'm hugely against payouts to supposedly profitable companies to try to woo them. Not just on the morality of it, but really the numbers game.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Mehh I'm not sold on that, we'll have to see how it plays out. But there was a $25MM tax abatement from Boston directly, that alone would be 25 years in Fairfield. But as you know I'm hugely against payouts to supposedly profitable companies to try to woo them. Not just on the morality of it, but really the numbers game.

I'm against overstating what is offered. What would Boston get from taxes via other uses? If it stayed vacant? If it took another 5 years to get to use? If its other use had 20% the grand list value?


The cost should be based on alternative uses only. That's the opportunity cost.


Corps have assets called jobs, and IMO getting money for granting them to a region is no different than selling a house.

[Beeker2211]

[quote=BobNJ1960;42635568]I'm against overstating what is offered. What would Boston get from taxes via other uses? If it stayed vacant? If it took another 5 years to get to use? If its other use had 20% the grand list value?/QUOTE]

So overstate to a worst case scenario? So if there was a little vacancy and someone else moved in at the normal rate that's worse? And let's not get too far away that few, if any, of the tax breaks and giveaways to large corporations have paid for themselves. I'm all for services, benefits, and even breaks that are available to any organization that could use it aka the "plan it first" method and then auction the benefits to the party that is willing to pay the most. This is a give away, plain and simple.

[BobNJ1960]

[quote=Beeker2211;42635791]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

I'm against overstating what is offered. What would Boston get from taxes via other uses? If it stayed vacant? If it took another 5 years to get to use? If its other use had 20% the grand list value?/QUOTE]

So overstate to a worst case scenario? So if there was a little vacancy and someone else moved in at the normal rate that's worse? And let's not get too far away that few, if any, of the tax breaks and giveaways to large corporations have paid for themselves. I'm all for services, benefits, and even breaks that are available to any organization that could use it aka the "plan it first" method and then auction the benefits to the party that is willing to pay the most. This is a give away, plain and simple.

Yes, we overstate by assuming Boston could get GE full taxes from anyone else. If they could have, they would have..already for decades. I'm after what are they truly giving up via an alternative use.classic opportunity cost calculation.

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Mehh I'm not sold on that, we'll have to see how it plays out. But there was a $25MM tax abatement from Boston directly, that alone would be 25 years in Fairfield. But as you know I'm hugely against payouts to supposedly profitable companies to try to woo them. Not just on the morality of it, but really the numbers game.

I half understand and 1/4 agree with your sentiment, but when hundreds of billions of dollars (over 1 trillion?) are doled out to individuals who don't work (many choosing not to do so), I can't help but be in favor of spending that money attracting companies that hire hundred to thousands of people and indirectly supports thousands more.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

Population growth in Chicago is sloth-like at 1% from 2010-2014.

Cute chart

Chicago's Population Grew Last Year—By 82: Chicagoist

That's a 82 people in net growth. Chicago is a city with a large physical area and the areas where population is booming (North Side and areas in and close to downtown) just slightly cancels out where the population is plummeting. There's a massive population shift that is going on within Chicago's borders even though a net growth of 82 people might seem like the population is stagnant. Also in that chart are Houston and San Antonio which over that period of time went gangbusters partially because of high oil prices which has meant the previous year and the coming year aren't going to be able to continue supporting that kind of growth. Dallas and the Metroplex is well on its way to becoming a megacity though.

What are the most bustling neighborhoods in Connecticut cities anyhow? I've really only been to New Haven.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

I half understand and 1/4 agree with your sentiment, but when hundreds of billions of dollars (over 1 trillion?) are doled out to individuals who don't work (many choosing not to do so), I can't help but be in favor of spending that money attracting companies that hire hundred to thousands of people and indirectly supports thousands more.

Bolded by me

[BPt111]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

That's a 82 people in net growth. Chicago is a city with a large physical area and the areas where population is booming (North Side and areas in and close to downtown) just slightly cancels out where the population is plummeting. There's a massive population shift that is going on within Chicago's borders even though a net growth of 82 people might seem like the population is stagnant. Also in that chart are Houston and San Antonio which over that period of time went gangbusters partially because of high oil prices which has meant the previous year and the coming year aren't going to be able to continue supporting that kind of growth. Dallas and the Metroplex is well on its way to becoming a megacity though.

What are the most bustling neighborhoods in Connecticut cities anyhow? I've really only been to New Haven.

and Stamford

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by eschaton

NYC's decline in crime has been more rapid than other cities though. It's the safest large city in the country now.

Bill deBlasio will fix that.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

Bill deBlasio will fix that.

They also fail to report and or respond to crimes fairly regularly. The 1970s it ain't, but it's not the beacon of safety that is projected. DeBlasio is also undoing decades of progress in record time.