L. Brooks Patterson Crying About Detroit Taking OC Jobs (Livonia: appointed, 2014)

[MS313]

This gave me a good laugh, for all the sh*t he talks, I just wish I would have seen his face when he found out 5/3 was moving downtown. OC has been doing this to Detroit for years, now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's "grumpy old man" time.

Brooks Patterson to Dan Gilbert: 'Hands off our jobs'

[Retroit]

Competition is good. Companies should move to wherever they get the best deal (often funded by the taxpayers, most of whom in Detroit will not benefit). I agree with LBP that it is no net benefit for the Detroit metro area though. We need to "steal" businesses from other metros.

[NOLA101]

He's right. Why would MI taxpayers subsidize a game of "musical jobs"? It's idiotic for his constituents to pay for the privilege of having longer commutes and smaller salaries, by subsidizing job relocations downtown.

[xfactor85]

Unfortunately, the new "growth" of Detroit is mostly directly attributed to companies moving from the suburbs to the city. Everyone is competing for a shrinking pie. What should be done is to entice companies from out of the region and to work together between the city and the suburbs.

[Arthur Digby Sellers]

Quicken was the poster child for this, ironically, when they moved out of Livonia. Gilbert threatened to move their HQ to Cleveland and Granholm and Kwame scrambled to put together a sweetheart tax break. It ended up being a net loss for the state.

[detwahDJ]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

He's right. Why would MI taxpayers subsidize a game of "musical jobs"? It's idiotic for his constituents to pay for the privilege of having longer commutes and smaller salaries, by subsidizing job relocations downtown.

We never heard anything but suburban support for businesses relocating outside of Detroit, so in your book, it is OK and "fair" for businesses to move in the opposite direction? Just depends on whose ox is being gored, eh?

And Detroit "stealing" jobs? AFAIK jobs relocating to the burbs certainly never was "stealing". In the decades-long history of this region, the shoe is suddenly on the other foot, and some folks, like relocation champion LBP and his constituents, don't like it. FYI, this is a business, not government, decision - you know, the revered "free market" at work.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by detwahDJ

We never heard anything but suburban support for businesses relocating outside of Detroit, so in your book, it is OK and "fair" for businesses to move in the opposite direction? Just depends on whose ox is being gored, eh?

Can you point to such an example?

I'm not aware of the state of Michigan providing deep incentives to encourage companies to move from downtown to the suburbs. In fact the opposite trend has been the case, basically forever (or at least ever since downtown started hurting around 40-50 years ago).

Originally Posted by detwahDJ

FYI, this is a business, not government, decision - you know, the revered "free market" at work.

What "free market"? There isn't anything built in Detroit from the "free market". Every renovated building or new building in Detroit is courtesy of the Michigan taxpayer. Every relocated job is courtesy of the Michigan taxpayer. Even restaurants downtown are often incentivzed with tax breaks and state grants.

[Spartanguy]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Can you point to such an example?

I'm not aware of the state of Michigan providing deep incentives to encourage companies to move from downtown to the suburbs. In fact the opposite trend has been the case, basically forever (or at least ever since downtown started hurting around 40-50 years ago).


What "free market"? There isn't anything built in Detroit from the "free market". Every renovated building or new building in Detroit is courtesy of the Michigan taxpayer. Every relocated job is courtesy of the Michigan taxpayer. Even restaurants downtown are often incentivzed with tax breaks and state grants.

Chrysler got millions in incentives when they moved from Highland Park to Auburn Hills. Look at where the incentives every building, job outside the city is courtesy of the Michigan taxpayer. For decades the movement businesses to the burb was heralded as growth. Now that a small swath of Detroit is winning business back to hear it downplayed as not having any net benefit to metro, makes me want laugh. Where we're these argument for the last 50 years?


Michigan Business Development Program Projects | MBDPP | MEDC


Michigan Community Revitalization Program Projects | MEDC

[mjlo]

The argument about a healthy core equals a healthier region applies here. For so long the people of suburban Detroit have felt they could just wall off the city and pretend it didn't exist, whilst functioning economically independent of it. However allowing the city itself to plummet via fractured regionalism helped the Detroit stigma to permeate to the entire metro, making the area as a whole undesirable for anyone without a working knowledge of it. That is if you ever wonder why we spend so much energy explaining that Detroit's suburbs are not bad like Detroit to 2/3rds of the people on this website, and in person.

I absolutely believe that the reinvestment and revitalization of Detroit's core will soon radiate out to its neighborhoods and so on. Whether that comes through consolidating existing jobs in the metro, or from external regions it has to happen. L Brooks can squawk all he wants, but a healthy Detroit helps Oakland County as much as his thinks decades old war with it has.

[detwahDJ]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Can you point to such an example?

I'm not aware of the state of Michigan providing deep incentives to encourage companies to move from downtown to the suburbs. In fact the opposite trend has been the case, basically forever (or at least ever since downtown started hurting around 40-50 years ago).


What "free market"? There isn't anything built in Detroit from the "free market". Every renovated building or new building in Detroit is courtesy of the Michigan taxpayer. Every relocated job is courtesy of the Michigan taxpayer. Even restaurants downtown are often incentivzed with tax breaks and state grants.

So you heard from some RW source that the perk is for moving? In the articles I saw, Patterson has said nothing about subsidization, and he dare not since he could benefit from it at some point. Incentives were to keep jobs in the state. It is well known that Gilbert has a major allegiance to, and affection for, Cleveland Ohio. Every tax break everywhere, in any community, comes from somebody else's pocket.
So a corporate CEO is taking advantage of tax breaks to locate his company where he wants - anything new here? In your opposition, are you speaking from principle? When conservative republicans support outsourcing of jobs, while opposing this....
GOP senators block top Obama jobs initiative - CNN.com

....your objections sound quite disingenuous. It is as I said, a pro-business conservative loves incentives and subsidies - until his own ox is gored.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...e-not-relocate

Gilbert can move his employees anywhere he wants. Same with 5/3 Bank. And taxes unfair? Rushbo says "Life ain't fair, so don't expect fairness and you won't be disappointed".
With such business perks all over the place, and favored by conservatives, the "free market" doesn't really exist - that is always my point to right-wingers who claim they want it deregulated.
That is why I use quotation marks around that term - meaning "so-called".

Okay, sounds like you're a disgruntled outstater or outsider who believes Michigan would prosper and fare quite well without Detroit - nothing new here either. If so, I'm pretty sure you're wrong, and your Gov apparently agrees.