Dayton Regionalism (Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati: apartment, lease, how much)

[SWOH]

Bringing this back to the top:

Report: Montgomery County regional strategy works - Dayton Business Journal


Apparently the ED/GE program in these parts is doing a good job of keeping companies from seeking corporate welfare for moving across town, which in turn is making companies more likely to stay put, ending "job piracy".


Thank goodness, I wish congressional action would happen to discourage the stupidity of the job piracy that happens across the nation. But that would require a strong stand from Democrats, and it's not likely to happen while "growing" (read - poaching) states like NC, VA, CO, and NM are rapidly switching from red to blue. But I digress...


The real issue I see is a lot of "job piracy" is happening at Austin Landing. I have proclaimed on here before Austin Landing by all metrics is a failure. All it has done is shuffle jobs from some places to others. No new jobs have been created. That, and the bizarre tax schema there which penalizes low wage workers doesn't help its case. But regardless, I am thrilled that's not happening MORE. Count your blessings.

[hensleya1]

Originally Posted by OHKID

The real issue I see is a lot of "job piracy" is happening at Austin Landing. I have proclaimed on here before Austin Landing by all metrics is a failure. All it has done is shuffle jobs from some places to others. No new jobs have been created. That, and the bizarre tax schema there which penalizes low wage workers doesn't help its case. But regardless, I am thrilled that's not happening MORE. Count your blessings.

I'm going to pick on this statement, because I have big issues with it. The first time I ever even drove up to Dayton, it was in May of 2011 to attend a week-long preview class that was being hosted at UD's law school. I decided to crash on a friend's couch for the week (I paid him in beer), and he lived at Austin Springs, those apartments on the other side of 741 and Austin Blvd. He told me "Austin Landing is a brand new exit, it's not even on the map yet". Of course, when I got there, he was right - there was a highway interchange, lights that weren't even operational yet, and a big dust bowl where Thompson Hine is now located.

Fast forward just three years, and how much development has entered the area (and is still planned/under construction? We gripe about the traffic problems that area has, but guess what? Traffic problems are a good thing. That means an area is growing, it's creating jobs, and money is being made. Yes, it is an issue that needs to be handled accordingly... firstly by ripping up that idiotic intersection and installing a normal traffic light.

***

But is Austin Landing a success or failure? That depends on what you're looking at. I'll touch on a few of the parties involved in the creation of Austin Landing:

Miami Township: gets thousands of jobs and has funded the infrastructure through TIF, money that wouldn't otherwise be there. It's become a major employment center, and since it's a JEDD, gets millions of dollars of tax revenue that it wouldn't have otherwise seen. Sure, only certain workers are taxed. But an office worker (who doesn't pay taxes) still shops and dines in the area on their lunch break... that benefits the business and the workers. It's a pretty clear winner for the township.

Randy Gunlock: This guy is laughing all the way to the bank as he knows Austin Landing is eating downtown's lunch from here all the way to Cincinnati. RG Properties, which bought the land and pitched the JEDD idea to Miami Township, makes a killing every time a building is built and leased out. He's definitely a winner.

Thompson Hine/Teradata/Chark Schaefer Hackett/Ameriprise/Kettering Health/etc...: Let's see here, they can locate downtown, pay market rates for buildings that haven't been updated in twenty-plus years, fight with parking downtown, fight with the nightmare of construction on I-75, pay city taxes and get nothing in return for it...

Or they can locate near a highway interchange that isn't screwed up, avoid paying city taxes, locate in a brand new building, with free parking, and access to a wide variety of restaurants and amenities that Downtown utterly lacks? Sounds like a pretty simple business decision. Businesses win by moving to Austin Landing.

***

To at least a few people, there's a few clear losers:

Downtown Dayton: Due to the aforementioned "business decision", almost any job that moves to Austin Landing (rather than being 'created') was at the expense of downtown. It's been a long time in coming, and frankly, overdue. Think about it, when the city of Dayton hiked the income tax in 1980, it was sold to city residents by saying "all those suburban workers will have to pay it, benefiting you, but they will have no say in the city. Let's stick it to those sods who abandoned the city." Well, that charade worked great until people decided to both live and work in the suburbs.

The only way to make downtown competitive is to improve access, reduce regulations and layers of government, and lower the city tax rate to make it competitive with the suburbs from a financial standpoint.

Regionalism: Because of the spectacular failure of Dayton to keep and retain jobs (while the suburbs have often grown), any efforts at "regionalism" is viewed with rightful suspicion. Remember this was tried a few years ago in Northeast Ohio. A far-flung suburb of Cleveland, called Avon, a couple counties over, got a proposal from a developer to build a new suburban office complex. But Cleveland, which was a member of the regional planning board, threatened to veto the deal unless Avon agreed to "share its tax revenues" with Cleveland.

Suburban residents and business spent quite a lot of time, effort, and money in trying to escape Dayton City Hall... they are rightfully going to push back against any attempt by Nan trying to get her hands back in suburban worker's pockets.

Anyone who actually Thought Austin Landing = Job Growth: I think it would be fair to put you, OHKID, in this last category? If that was the case, then clearly Austin Landing failed - but I would argue, based on my points above, that regional job growth was never Randy Gunlock's goal.

[SWOH]

Good comment hensleya1, I will pick at it later when I'm not between classes.

I will start by asking - has even one NEW company come to the region Austin Landing?

[RDriesenUD]

Originally Posted by OHKID

Bringing this back to the top:

Report: Montgomery County regional strategy works - Dayton Business Journal


Apparently the ED/GE program in these parts is doing a good job of keeping companies from seeking corporate welfare for moving across town, which in turn is making companies more likely to stay put, ending "job piracy".


Thank goodness, I wish congressional action would happen to discourage the stupidity of the job piracy that happens across the nation. But that would require a strong stand from Democrats, and it's not likely to happen while "growing" (read - poaching) states like NC, VA, CO, and NM are rapidly switching from red to blue. But I digress...


The real issue I see is a lot of "job piracy" is happening at Austin Landing. I have proclaimed on here before Austin Landing by all metrics is a failure. All it has done is shuffle jobs from some places to others. No new jobs have been created. That, and the bizarre tax schema there which penalizes low wage workers doesn't help its case. But regardless, I am thrilled that's not happening MORE. Count your blessings.

I agree. Thanks for posting.

[RDriesenUD]

The problem is places like Austin Landing are good for one area and bad for another, so they aren't really a net plus. That is where I come from. For it to be a positive would be for it to add jobs and not just move them from one place to another. I would never say the place itself isn't good. It just isn't that great for the region. The goal should be to bring new companies and jobs to the region.

[hensleya1]

Originally Posted by RDriesenUD

The problem is places like Austin Landing are good for one area and bad for another, so they aren't really a net plus. That is where I come from. For it to be a positive would be for it to add jobs and not just move them from one place to another. I would never say the place itself isn't good. It just isn't that great for the region. The goal should be to bring new companies and jobs to the region.

I'm going to take this a different way - if the offices at Austin Landing hadn't been built, what are the chances that the jobs would have left town altogether? Availability of good office space (and price) factors heavily into a business decision. No gain, while not good, is better than a net loss.

[RDriesenUD]

Originally Posted by hensleya1

I'm going to take this a different way - if the offices at Austin Landing hadn't been built, what are the chances that the jobs would have left town altogether? Availability of good office space (and price) factors heavily into a business decision. No gain, while not good, is better than a net loss.

There is nothing to say they would have. Could they have? Sure. It isn't like they had said they were leaving the area or state though.

[hensleya1]

Originally Posted by RDriesenUD

There is nothing to say they would have. Could they have? Sure. It isn't like they had said they were leaving the area or state though.

Well, consider the breakdown of the employers that moved to Austin Landing - it's fair to say that some of the offices - Clark Schaefer Hackett, for instance, which is a national accounting firm, would never really truly leave the Dayton area completely... since it's advantageous for them to have at least one office in every major city. Probably ditto Thompson Hine, although a fair argument could be made they would have just consolidated in their Cincinnati office.

But what of the employers who only have one office to begin with, or their Dayton-area office is huge? Teradata, perhaps, could have followed in the footsteps of NCR and left for Georgia?

***

Moreover, a lot of the businesses that have moved there - such as the Kroger's - are entirely new. Is it a new company? No. But it did create hundreds of new jobs, and with the continued growth in the area it doesn't look like the market is saturated with grocery stores (although I would think it is - evidently not?)

[RDriesenUD]

Fair enough.

[IDtheftV]

Originally Posted by RDriesenUD

The goal should be to bring new companies and jobs to the region.

I would say the goal should be to do what it takes to keep existing companies here and to encourage them to expand by treating them like the valuable assets to the are that they are.

As I wrote in another thread, all of the businesses that used to provide jobs and then left Dayton or closed-up, started in Dayton and were taken for granted by both the governments and their unions. Even GM, which wasn't a home-grown company, established its presence by buying existing companies.

Bringing in new companies these days always involves subsidies which is another way of saying 'taking money from existing citizens ( corporate and individual ) and giving it to non-citizens.' It's a photo-op for politicians and that's all. As soon as the subsidies run out, the outside company just runs for the next community with gullible leaders who will give them more money.

Dayton can't compete with the gravy train. What it can do is streamline approvals, eliminate red tape, etc. for companies who are already here. Outsiders will see what it means to be a citizen and join up.