Atlanta taps the breaks on some developer incentives. It's not alone. (Dallas: neighborhoods, buy)

[LynnHarris1]

All over the United States, cities, counties and states offer companies all kinds of tax breaks or other incentives to lure companies. In the city of Atlanta, the most expensive objectives are shiny office buildings, which can get property tax breaks in the tens of millions of dollars, even in bustling neighborhoods. The idea is that the company will bring jobs and eventually pay a full load of taxes.

But some cities are looking around and thinking that what they lack isn't skyscrapers or white-collar jobs for tech workers, but other things like smooth roads or affordable housing. And some cities are pivoting towards incentives that bring those kinds of things..."

FULL STORY: https://saportareport.com/atlanta-ta...its-not-alone/

SOURCE: Saporta Report

[DreamerD]

I couldn't help but feel annoyed as I read the article. There was essentially wealthfare put into areas that already had high demand. This to me makes no sense. You are suppose to stimulate to increase demand, not stimulate when the demand is obviously there. They write these checks so easily but when it comes to helping poor people it's another story.

[markjames68]

Wouldn’t it be tapping the brakes if they want to slow it down?

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by DreamerD

I couldn't help but feel annoyed as I read the article. There was essentially wealthfare put into areas that already had high demand. This to me makes no sense. You are suppose to stimulate to increase demand, not stimulate when the demand is obviously there. They write these checks so easily but when it comes to helping poor people it's another story.

I get how you feel about that and I agree that this country as a whole needs to do alot more for the misfortunate than it does but on the other side of the coin it isnt quite as easy as forgoing the tax incentives and assuming that the demand will remain there because there is alot more competition out there now and locations that do offer 'enough' amenities for employers to attract businesses in cheaper land or other metros that gladly will offer tax incentives for a corporate relo if another metro does not. In this aspect I have to say that the tax incentives are indeed necessary to keep the metro competitive with other metros, especially the smaller and growing metros.

If they didnt do it, some corporations may indeed choose another metro altogether whom offers a better package which eliminates potential jobs and could do more to further potential poverty.

It sucks because it does make it look like these corporations are getting away scotch free but the state makes the money back by increased income and property taxes.

[DJDeadParrot]

Kinda surprised that Amazon HQ2 wasn't mentioned in this article, considering how just about every major city in North America was offering 8+digit tax breaks little more than 2 years ago.

Originally Posted by markjames68

Wouldn’t it be tapping the brakes if they want to slow it down?

Somebody pointed that out in the original article, and its been fixed.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by DJDeadParrot

Kinda surprised that Amazon HQ2 wasn't mentioned in this article, considering how just about every major city in North America was offering 8+digit tax breaks little more than 2 years ago.

True, since if you are looking for a catalyst for the shift this would be it. The whole HQ2 thing showed just how insane corporate welfare has gotten and I think the public started to develop a bad taste for it as it dragged on for months on becoming crazier by the minute.

If you ask me that's a good thing, especially for major cities that don't have to throw autonomy in the name of a few thousand jobs.

[arjay57]

Two words. One starts with L and the other with R.

[DreamerD]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I get how you feel about that and I agree that this country as a whole needs to do alot more for the misfortunate than it does but on the other side of the coin it isnt quite as easy as forgoing the tax incentives and assuming that the demand will remain there because there is alot more competition out there now and locations that do offer 'enough' amenities for employers to attract businesses in cheaper land or other metros that gladly will offer tax incentives for a corporate relo if another metro does not. In this aspect I have to say that the tax incentives are indeed necessary to keep the metro competitive with other metros, especially the smaller and growing metros.

If they didnt do it, some corporations may indeed choose another metro altogether whom offers a better package which eliminates potential jobs and could do more to further potential poverty.

It sucks because it does make it look like these corporations are getting away scotch free but the state makes the money back by increased income and property taxes.

I see what you're saying but I'm thinking of this from an economics perspective. When an area is described as "hot," the last thing that should be done is providing stimulus. It can have negative consequences in the long run.

I respectfully disagree with the bit about corporations moving away and poverty increasing because the opposite can happen where too many companies, especially industries such as tech, move into a given city and inflate property prices pricing a lot of people out. What you said to me sounds like trickle-down economics and this does not benefit the masses.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I get how you feel about that and I agree that this country as a whole needs to do alot more for the misfortunate than it does but on the other side of the coin it isnt quite as easy as forgoing the tax incentives and assuming that the demand will remain there because there is alot more competition out there now and locations that do offer 'enough' amenities for employers to attract businesses in cheaper land or other metros that gladly will offer tax incentives for a corporate relo if another metro does not. In this aspect I have to say that the tax incentives are indeed necessary to keep the metro competitive with other metros, especially the smaller and growing metros.

If they didnt do it, some corporations may indeed choose another metro altogether whom offers a better package which eliminates potential jobs and could do more to further potential poverty.

It sucks because it does make it look like these corporations are getting away scotch free but the state makes the money back by increased income and property taxes.

Politicians and economic developers often claim that every firm they touch with an incentive dollar would never locate in their city and state but for the incentive. And they often claim that incentives are self-financing. But the empirical evidence strongly suggests that at least 75 percent of the time, the same jobs would’ve been located in the state and local economy anyway, so the incentive is then all cost and no benefit.

People talk about multipliers as though they are magic. One of the rationales for trying to give incentives to a firm is that potentially there are multipliers that occur, because the firm will buy supplies from local suppliers, or because the firm’s workers will buy more things locally.

But when you attract firms and you add these multiplier effects, the resulting growth tends to drive up local wages, local land prices, and other local prices. So the area becomes a higher-cost area, and that’s going to discourage some job growth in other firms. Estimates I’ve done suggest that these kind of negative cost feedbacks reduce the multiplier by perhaps one-third.

And incentives don’t pay for themselves, as a rule. When you bring in jobs, you also bring in people, and you have to provide this added population with public services. Usually, the added public-service costs eat up at least 90 percent of any increased revenue.

So if incentives don’t pay for themselves, where do you get the money to pay for the incentives? You have to increase taxes, or you have to cut public spending. Increased taxes reduce residents’ incomes. They don’t have as much to spend. And that’s going to decrease jobs in the area. If you cut public spending, that may directly lead to laying off public workers—which directly reduces jobs, and also reduces the spending power of those workers who were laid off.

Also, tax increases or spending cuts can have what economists call supply-side effects on the productivity of the local economy. If you cut spending on public schools, that’s going to have some negative effects on the quality of the local labor supply. The same could be true for cuts in university spending, cuts in public-health spending, cuts in infrastructure spending.

The point is that the money to pay for incentives is not coming out of thin air. State and local governments have to somehow pay for incentives, and that has some economic consequences. So you can’t simply look at the positive side of the multiplier effects of incentives and job creation, and ignore some of these negative effects. You’re going to drive up costs, which is going to drive away some jobs, and you’re also going to have to pay for the incentives, and that’s going to drive away some jobs.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/...olices/601735/

[bellhead]

Originally Posted by DJDeadParrot

Kinda surprised that Amazon HQ2 wasn't mentioned in this article, considering how just about every major city in North America was offering 8+digit tax breaks little more than 2 years ago.



Somebody pointed that out in the original article, and its been fixed.

HQ2 is so massive that it would have taken a mid-sized city like Cincinnati & elevated it into a top 10 tech city due to the amount of IT jobs it would have brought into the city. For a city like Atlanta/Houston/Dallas it would have probably given them the momentum to crack a 10 million population mark by 2035 turning them into megacities.