Good to see some of you guys gradually coming to grips with tax breaks for corporations. The long term reward far outweighs any short term/ miniscule "cost" to the city. I put "cost" in quotations because a tax break can hardly be considered a cost. We want as many businesses to do their business here as possible, even when it requires doling out incentives.
|
Quote:
|
Well it's delicate, on one hand you want to establish a precedent that the corps. need the city, and not vice versa. The economic impact absolutely exceeds any short term "cost" but you also can't give away the farm for 20 years.
|
Yeah there must be a balance. Ideally they would be precluded from accepting tax breaks under federal law. that way the playing field would remain even and you wouldn’t see states and cities competing in a race to the bottom vis a vis revenue collection. Until that happens the city should squeeze whatever it can out of corporations that benefit from its dynamic workforce and utterly magnificent urban landscape.
|
Quote:
And it's really just basic, sound public policy to subsidize these kinds of things. The same rationale behind taxing carbon and subsidizing R&D applies here. Quote:
|
Yep. Tax breaks can be seen as investment **if** done in a way that makes the city/state win too. Money doesn't come out of thin air. You have to spend some money to make some money. I am not a fan of corporations sucking cities dry, but $10M is hardly anything when dealing with 5000 new pretty well paying jobs. If you structure it in a way that the city wins, then I have no issues with it. Programs like EDGE are set up like this for a reason, and also why they have a "retention" aspect to their agreement.
|
Quote:
If Salesforce does hammer out a deal, they're looking for 500,000 sq ft. I don't know what the proposed floor plate sizes were to be, but office floors are always taller than residential and 500,000 sq ft fills a number of floors and the tower will be built on the allowable FAR. I'm wondering and oh so hoping that this tower grows. This location deserves something signature. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Economists say that most of the time, the incentives are counterproductive — a zero-sum game in which jobs created in one community come at the expense of jobs lost somewhere else. It's like being happy for housing prices going up.... the same house costs more, yay! |
Quote:
Chicago's gain is Seattle's, San Franciso's, Portland's, etc loss |
Quote:
It's also interesting the article mentions the deal includes options for "significantly more space". This announcement is great news and further cements Chicago as an outlet for all these tech companies that are choaking their own growth off by overstauring entire metropolitan markets on the West Coast. |
Quote:
Kenmore continues to plunge deeper into trolldom... |
Quote:
Quote:
For the people out there who hate gentrification, this would be a good thing (in your eyes) because it doesn't displace people. What makes me salivate (not so much as a property owner but as one who loves watching Chicago's skyline become ever more awesome) is that 5000 more jobs can probably support about 10-20 more apartment highrises alone. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I want 1100’
|
Quote:
|
I would not say most but those workers that are older and have multiple school age children could easily choose a suburb with excellent public schools and take a very convenient ride on Metra to DT would. Private schools in Chicago are expensive enough to consider public suburban schools easily.
The singles and workers with no children or children not in school Chicago is the clear choice. |
When i worked downtown, I’d say 30% of the office lived in the burbs, mostly middle managers with kids. That would be about 1,500 of the “up
to” 5,000. All the young people and most of the executives lived in the city. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 7:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.