Atlanta OKs public funds for studio expansion (lease, credit)

[tonygeorgia]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

If that is the case, then let the studio invest. Let the free market work. Get government out of interfering and picking winners and losers.

That is fundamentally wrong and un-American. Let the risk takers get the gain/loss.

I agree

[ATLTJL]

I'd like to see the ROI on the investment of public funds.

My guess is that a measly $500k investment will bring much more than that to Atlanta in terms of revenue, but I guess I don't know for sure.

It's much easier to digest than the $500 million, or whatever the city wants to chip in, for a new stadium. Again, I'd like to see the ROI on that and I might adjust my stance if the numbers worked out....but my gut tells me that 100 additional soundstages would bring way more great things to the city than one football stadium.

And you know I'm critical of the film industry because it tends to bring low level, low paying, temporary work to the city. Hollywood brings most of the professionals (even crummy PAs who just hold clipboards and tell you not to come onto the lot) with them. However, the actors eat in restaurants, stay in hotels, get catered, and so on, so I'm not going to deny that the industry does bring money to the city. I guess what I'm saying is if that the money is good, but it's not contributing all that much to long term growth. If you want to "make it" in the film industry, be it as an actor, director, cinematographer, and apparently even a PA....you still stand a much better shot by moving to Los Angeles.

[tonygeorgia]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

I'd like to see the ROI on the investment of public funds.

My guess is that a measly $500k investment will bring much more than that to Atlanta in terms of revenue, but I guess I don't know for sure.

It's much easier to digest than the $500 million, or whatever the city wants to chip in, for a new stadium. Again, I'd like to see the ROI on that and I might adjust my stance if the numbers worked out....but my gut tells me that 100 additional soundstages would bring way more great things to the city than one football stadium.

And you know I'm critical of the film industry because it tends to bring low level, low paying, temporary work to the city. Hollywood brings most of the professionals (even crummy PAs who just hold clipboards and tell you not to come onto the lot) with them. However, the actors eat in restaurants, stay in hotels, get catered, and so on, so I'm not going to deny that the industry does bring money to the city. I guess what I'm saying is if that the money is good, but it's not contributing all that much to long term growth. If you want to "make it" in the film industry, be it as an actor, director, cinematographer, and apparently even a PA....you still stand a much better shot by moving to Los Angeles.

Generally yes but things have changed in Hollywood since other states have better incentives for the movie industry than Hollywood. The unions have also played a big role I'm the decreased production in Hollywood. The thing about the film industry is that you can film a movie anywhere.

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

maybe it's because you're checking CRAIGSLIST.

in all seriousness, the movie industry is really peaking here. a few tax breaks here and there will keep the interest in atlanta. however, i think the money doesn't need to come from property taxes— that needs to be directed towards the poor schools in the area.

WHAT YOU GOT AGAINST CRAIGSLIST!!!!!

I was being tongue and cheek. I some folks that are doing quite well with the movie industry here. I hope it continues to grow. But I don't see why we need to be giving public money to a seemingly thriving and highly profitable industry.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

I'd like to see the ROI on the investment of public funds.

My guess is that a measly $500k investment will bring much more than that to Atlanta in terms of revenue, but I guess I don't know for sure.

It's much easier to digest than the $500 million, or whatever the city wants to chip in, for a new stadium. Again, I'd like to see the ROI on that and I might adjust my stance if the numbers worked out....but my gut tells me that 100 additional soundstages would bring way more great things to the city than one football stadium.

And you know I'm critical of the film industry because it tends to bring low level, low paying, temporary work to the city. Hollywood brings most of the professionals (even crummy PAs who just hold clipboards and tell you not to come onto the lot) with them. However, the actors eat in restaurants, stay in hotels, get catered, and so on, so I'm not going to deny that the industry does bring money to the city. I guess what I'm saying is if that the money is good, but it's not contributing all that much to long term growth. If you want to "make it" in the film industry, be it as an actor, director, cinematographer, and apparently even a PA....you still stand a much better shot by moving to Los Angeles.

When did it become the government's job to invest taxpayer's money? If they are building something that benefits the public good (police, fire, roads, parks, etc.) then that makes sense. This is pure speculative development. It might be a sure thing, but even then, that is not the role of government. How did we get to this point where this increased government power is seen as a good thing? If it were such a good investment, let private investors do it. If there were that great of an opportunity, the free market would jump in and fund this. The local area would benefit from the increased employment, taxes, etc whlie shouldering none of the costs.

[ATLTJL]

You're right, but the big professionals tend to keep their permanent residences in LA.

Maybe what we need is a gigantic earthquake to level it all and it will all come here! LOL.

[ATLTJL]

I agree with you 100% in principle, corndog.

If it were up to me, I probably wouldn't do it, so I'm not defending it that way. I'm just saying that I don't necessarily have a big enough problem with it to challenge what was done.

Tony is right that movies can be filmed anywhere. So why not Charlotte? Denver? Dallas? Hattiesburg, Mississippi? I think the government is trying to lure the industry here. Once they are firmly established, the handouts will probably end. I mean, I doubt the city of Los Angeles gives the industry money because it is so rooted there. But I don't know for sure...the industry has moved out of Hollywood, so maybe places like Burbank, Studio City, Glendale, etc. did give money to attract the industry to them.

BTW, there are alos a few intangibles involved. The more the skyline of Atlanta and local places are seen on the big screen, the more it helps tourism.

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

If that is the case, then let the studio invest. Let the free market work. Get government out of interfering and picking winners and losers.

That is fundamentally wrong and un-American. Let the risk takers get the gain/loss.

I don't love the use of tax payer funds and I do generally agree with what you are saying, especially when it comes to a federal issue.

But for the sake of argument, is this not the game we have to play to get the jobs and industry here? If we don't do it, another city will. They will get the jobs and in the long run they will benefit from the investment. If there is a net benefit to this $500 M investment, isn't it worth it?

[tonygeorgia]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

I agree with you 100% in principle, corndog.

If it were up to me, I probably wouldn't do it, so I'm not defending it that way. I'm just saying that I don't necessarily have a big enough problem with it to challenge what was done.

Tony is right that movies can be filmed anywhere. So why not Charlotte? Denver? Dallas? Hattiesburg, Mississippi? I think the government is trying to lure the industry here. Once they are firmly established, the handouts will probably end. I mean, I doubt the city of Los Angeles gives the industry money because it is so rooted there. But I don't know for sure...the industry has moved out of Hollywood, so maybe places like Burbank, Studio City, Glendale, etc. did give money to attract the industry to them.

BTW, there are alos a few intangibles involved. The more the skyline of Atlanta and local places are seen on the big screen, the more it helps tourism.

They film here because its cheaper and because of our airport. They also like Atlanta as a city

[tonygeorgia]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

I agree with you 100% in principle, corndog.

If it were up to me, I probably wouldn't do it, so I'm not defending it that way. I'm just saying that I don't necessarily have a big enough problem with it to challenge what was done.

Tony is right that movies can be filmed anywhere. So why not Charlotte? Denver? Dallas? Hattiesburg, Mississippi? I think the government is trying to lure the industry here. Once they are firmly established, the handouts will probably end. I mean, I doubt the city of Los Angeles gives the industry money because it is so rooted there. But I don't know for sure...the industry has moved out of Hollywood, so maybe places like Burbank, Studio City, Glendale, etc. did give money to attract the industry to them.

BTW, there are alos a few intangibles involved. The more the skyline of Atlanta and local places are seen on the big screen, the more it helps tourism.

I agree about the skyline part. When I was watching the nfl game in charlotte last night the skyline on tv made me want to visit charlotte even though I have already been there before