Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Eh. Elon Musk definitely didn’t choose Austin because it was progressive. He chose it because local talent supply was strong enough to meet the demand of his operations and its within the state of TX (tax break) and his wife in general likes Austin. Oracle chose Austin as a HQ because they were already carrying out HQ operations in the Oracle facility in Austin for some time before they officially moved. They moved for the tax break and the fact that they were already established in Austin, not because Austin is progressive. The filming industry in Atlanta was heavily influenced because once again, Brian Kemp gave them tax breaks. Add onto the fact that Georgia is fairly scenic and there are plenty of historic areas (good for filming) in the Atlanta metro area. They were appalled by Kemps abortion law and threatened to leave but none of them did. Why? Because they were not going to find a better deal than they were already receiving. Businesses are far more concerned about fiscal matters and who can actually do the job than local politics.
Lubbock lacks the investment in education that UT offers for Austin, and it’s also not in as desirable of a region as Austin is. The university system has largely adopted the woke culture and thus more educated populations tend to think more liberal… however the two are non conclusive, one can be educated and entirely fit for a role and still not be progressive.
I'm probably wrong but seem to recall reading Oracle received no incentives moving its HQ to Austin.
you can’t walk to many things (and honestly even in our core urban areas, you still don’t get anything close to an experience like Chicago, NYC, Boston, SF or heck even Seattle
Agreed, even in urban TX metros, you still need a car to do anything. It's not just "I don't mind driving" though, you better be prepared to sit in gnarly traffic any time of day.
Quote:
The reason our burbs keep sprawling outward is to keep affordability in check. Unfortunately that comes at the cost of very sprawly metros.
Affordable for the home buyers maybe, but upkeep of all these roads and services that keep sprawling outwards has its own affordability cost for cities. When roads and water/sewer lines have a lifetime of 20-40 years, and your tax base just kept moving outward to the new developments, how do you keep the infrastructure up and running.
As far as the desirability of these developments, I guess if you work in the city and you need to have a 4 br house, then the TX suburbs are the only game in town. If people really want space, I don't get why they don't build on larger lots and let people have more freedom with their land; I was looking to buy a home on 1-2 acres to do some small gardening/farming with tree cover between neighbors and ended up going outside TX because I guess we just don't do that here; everything looks like this, where you can high-five your neighbors out your window, despite us having tons of space.
Agreed, even in urban TX metros, you still need a car to do anything. It's not just "I don't mind driving" though, you better be prepared to sit in gnarly traffic any time of day.
Affordable for the home buyers maybe, but upkeep of all these roads and services that keep sprawling outwards has its own affordability cost for cities. When roads and water/sewer lines have a lifetime of 20-40 years, and your tax base just kept moving outward to the new developments, how do you keep the infrastructure up and running.
As far as the desirability of these developments, I guess if you work in the city and you need to have a 4 br house, then the TX suburbs are the only game in town. If people really want space, I don't get why they don't build on larger lots and let people have more freedom with their land; I was looking to buy a home on 1-2 acres to do some small gardening/farming with tree cover between neighbors and ended up going outside TX because I guess we just don't do that here; everything looks like this, where you can high-five your neighbors out your window, despite us having tons of space.
I think TX builds on small lots because property tax and how expensive it is to own large lots here. In Georgia larger lots were not uncommon and you could have an acre there and pay nowhere near as much as you would for a half an acre here for housing.
I’d say yes. I won’t say all suburban sprawl is to be desired. Manor TX for example, while not what I would call suburban blight, is a area of East Austin that could be designed to help alleviate prices in metro Austin burbs if schools were on par with the more desirable burbs in the city… …more housing availability for a preference of lifestyle will make housing both more affordable and feasible for all inhabitants. Here however is what would happen though. Let’s say for example hypothetically the average home values in Manor TX were around $350k with poor schooling and then the average home values in Leander TX (with good schooling) were around $500k … idealistically if both areas had good schools then more people who would normally choose Leander, could now choose Manor… …and values between both would idealistically equalize to about $425k (Leander would depreciate because it now has to compete with Manor, which is slightly closer to Austin and now has just as good of schooling)
Now there are two downsides to this.
#1 - The people currently living in Manor may run into affordability issues as they now have to pay more taxes on the new value of their home which has appreciated
#2 - The people currently living in Leander that were used to paying higher taxes may lose equity essentially meaning all of the money they paid in the past toward tax went into a void of unrealized gain.
However overall revitalization of any urban and suburban area to attract growth that would otherwise normally sprawl is still a win.
I see you have not looked at all the new houses going by the golf course in Manor. Most are 500 - 700 k
Our son was the very first one to buy in his development and has not even moved in and the most of the other houses are now going 100k or more than he paid. The secret is out on Manor.
Eh. Elon Musk definitely didn’t choose Austin because it was progressive. He chose it because local talent supply was strong enough to meet the demand of his operations and its within the state of TX (tax break) and his wife in general likes Austin. Oracle chose Austin as a HQ because they were already carrying out HQ operations in the Oracle facility in Austin for some time before they officially moved. They moved for the tax break and the fact that they were already established in Austin, not because Austin is progressive. The filming industry in Atlanta was heavily influenced because once again, Brian Kemp gave them tax breaks. Add onto the fact that Georgia is fairly scenic and there are plenty of historic areas (good for filming) in the Atlanta metro area. They were appalled by Kemps abortion law and threatened to leave but none of them did. Why? Because they were not going to find a better deal than they were already receiving. Businesses are far more concerned about fiscal matters and who can actually do the job than local politics.
Lubbock lacks the investment in education that UT offers for Austin, and it’s also not in as desirable of a region as Austin is. The university system has largely adopted the woke culture and thus more educated populations tend to think more liberal… however the two are non conclusive, one can be educated and entirely fit for a role and still not be progressive.
I wonder why Elon's wife (ex-wife I think) liked Austin. Look at her, she fits in perfectly with the city. Atlanta's black progressives (leaders, film producers, and music industry) were more influential in bringing Hollywood investment to the city. Just look at Tyler Perry's efforts. Tax incentives were only the icing on the cake. Many places in America offer tax incentives, but Atlanta has consigners. After all, they are not setting up shop in Macon GA. The abortion issues didn't drive them away likely because Tyler Perry and Stacie Abrams and other progressive figures convinced them to stay. For liberal dominated industries (tech, arts), a city being progressive is a big draw since their workforce tends to lean progressive. As such they can convince employees to move to the location and generally keep them happier once there. Much harder sale if your company is in Lubbock. Look at the trouble Elon is having recruiting people to his Space X headquarters. I can go on and on, but just look at America. Companies like blue cities in red states when choosing to expand or relocate.
Eh. Elon Musk definitely didn’t choose Austin because it was progressive. He chose it because local talent supply was strong enough to meet the demand of his operations and its within the state of TX (tax break) and his wife in general likes Austin. Oracle chose Austin as a HQ because they were already carrying out HQ operations in the Oracle facility in Austin for some time before they officially moved. They moved for the tax break and the fact that they were already established in Austin, not because Austin is progressive. The filming industry in Atlanta was heavily influenced because once again, Brian Kemp gave them tax breaks. Add onto the fact that Georgia is fairly scenic and there are plenty of historic areas (good for filming) in the Atlanta metro area. They were appalled by Kemps abortion law and threatened to leave but none of them did. Why? Because they were not going to find a better deal than they were already receiving. Businesses are far more concerned about fiscal matters and who can actually do the job than local politics.
Lubbock lacks the investment in education that UT offers for Austin, and it’s also not in as desirable of a region as Austin is. The university system has largely adopted the woke culture and thus more educated populations tend to think more liberal… however the two are non conclusive, one can be educated and entirely fit for a role and still not be progressive.
The local talent pool for Developers, PMs and BAs is strong partly because of the liberal vibe.
Good luck finding those talent in places like Oklahoma City or Tulsa, or convince many first tier developers to move there.
Of course politics isn't the only thing. Houston isn't really less liberal than Austin but does not have the same cachet among knowledge workers.
I wonder why Elon's wife (ex-wife I think) liked Austin. Look at her, she fits in perfectly with the city. Atlanta's black progressives (leaders, film producers, and music industry) were more influential in bringing Hollywood investment to the city. Just look at Tyler Perry's efforts. Tax incentives were only the icing on the cake. Many places in America offer tax incentives, but Atlanta has consigners. After all, they are not setting up shop in Macon GA. The abortion issues didn't drive them away likely because Tyler Perry and Stacie Abrams and other progressive figures convinced them to stay. For liberal dominated industries (tech, arts), a city being progressive is a big draw since their workforce tends to lean progressive. As such they can convince employees to move to the location and generally keep them happier once there. Much harder sale if your company is in Lubbock. Look at the trouble Elon is having recruiting people to his Space X headquarters. I can go on and on, but just look at America. Companies like blue cities in red states when choosing to expand or relocate.
Tax incentives were not the icing on the cake, they were a large motivator for the relocations of these companies. Elon particularly vocally expressed his frustration with California taxation...and California is a very progressive state with unmatchable talent from Stanford and heavily educated transplants involved in STEM, that didn't stop Elon from moving though. Austin was on the list because it was a favored spot of his and he had frequented Austin many times prior and it was comparably affordable. If taxes were not an issue, none of these companies would have ever relocated from their original home.
Kemp offered a very strong incentive for the Hollywood industry in Georgia. Added onto the local talent, it's not easy to pack up and go to another place. Georgia is able to compete strongly in a tax breaks for the industry because:
#1. It has a very diverse economy and is not solely dependent on one particular industry making it easier to offer stronger tax breaks.
#2. It happens to exist in a desirable region of the country with plenty of scenery for filming
#3. It contains historic architecture which also makes desirable locations
They could easily find the talent they want in places such as NY or CA which are both much more progressive than Georgia if taxes were only icing on the cake, likewise if it made fiscal sense they could find the talent they need to fill in for Tyler Perry or Stacy Abrams. They may have played a role but overall the real decider was money. It would not have made financial sense to uproot. They chose to stay because its affordable to run operations and they had the talent they needed.
Macon and Lubbock would likely outcry in rejection of the filming or tech industries. Neither of those cities offer the talent needed to sustain either industry either, and both do not have other criteria that keep those work forces entertained enough (such as parks, museums, theatre, live music, food diversity, ect). It is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of criteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkwensky
The local talent pool for Developers, PMs and BAs is strong partly because of the liberal vibe.
Good luck finding those talent in places like Oklahoma City or Tulsa, or convince many first tier developers to move there.
Of course politics isn't the only thing. Houston isn't really less liberal than Austin but does not have the same cachet among knowledge workers.
Both OKC and Tulsa are also not in desirable regions of the country however. The Geography is bland and even if they did have a liberal vibe, it would still be very difficult for them to compete with Austin, Atlanta, and so forth. There is not enough interesting features about them to attract the talent base these companies need. I will agree that educated work forces do tend to lean more liberal, but what I disagree with is that these companies are choosing these places 'because' they're liberal. They are choosing these places because they match criteria to find their ideal work candidates.. ..and much of that criteria is independent of political leanings.
Last edited by Need4Camaro; 05-06-2022 at 09:58 AM..
Tax incentives were not the icing on the cake, they were a large motivator for the relocations of these companies. Elon particularly vocally expressed his frustration with California taxation...and California is a very progressive state with unmatchable talent from Stanford and heavily educated transplants involved in STEM, that didn't stop Elon from moving though. Austin was on the list because it was a favored spot of his and he had frequented Austin many times prior and it was comparably affordable. If taxes were not an issue, none of these companies would have ever relocated from their original home.
Kemp offered a very strong incentive for the Hollywood industry in Georgia. Added onto the local talent, it's not easy to pack up and go to another place. Georgia is able to compete strongly in a tax breaks for the industry because:
#1. It has a very diverse economy and is not solely dependent on one particular industry making it easier to offer stronger tax breaks.
#2. It happens to exist in a desirable region of the country with plenty of scenery for filming
#3. It contains historic architecture which also makes desirable locations
They could easily find the talent they want in places such as NY or CA which are both much more progressive than Georgia if taxes were only icing on the cake, likewise if it made fiscal sense they could find the talent they need to fill in for Tyler Perry or Stacy Abrams. They may have played a role but overall the real decider was money. It would not have made financial sense to uproot. They chose to stay because its affordable to run operations and they had the talent they needed.
Macon and Lubbock would likely outcry in rejection of the filming or tech industries. Neither of those cities offer the talent needed to sustain either industry either, and both do not have other criteria that keep those work forces entertained enough (such as parks, museums, theatre, live music, food diversity, ect). It is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of criteria.
Both OKC and Tulsa are also not in desirable regions of the country however. The Geography is bland and even if they did have a liberal vibe, it would still be very difficult for them to compete with Austin, Atlanta, and so forth. There is not enough interesting features about them to attract the talent base these companies need. I will agree that educated work forces do tend to lean more liberal, but what I disagree with is that these companies are choosing these places 'because' they're liberal. They are choosing these places because they match criteria to find their ideal work candidates.. ..and much of that criteria is independent of political leanings.
I think you're placing the importance of incentive deals at the wrong point in the process. I speak from experience with folks who actually work in economic development. The things that get a location on a "short list" are labor availability (either already in place or being able to attract it), infrastructure/services, quality of life, regulatory environment, overall tax burden independent of incentives, and other practical factors specific to each firm. Once a company's got a short list, then the incentive deals become important.
I will say, that a state or location that trumpets its incentives may get itself on a firm's radar when it's considering relocation, but it's generally not a consideration for the short list. The film industry does seem to be a unique exception to this.
Also, have you never been to Tulsa? It actually has nice and interesting topography, and is nearly adjacent to the very attractive Ozark / Ouachita region. That factor is certainly not a disqualifier for that metro.
OKC, on the other hand...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
