In a well thought out editorial, The Explorer's Dave Perry presents his case why Oro Valley should give a 1% construction tax rebate to Sanofi-Aventis.
In his article, reporter Patrick McNamara saw fit to quote me, among others. He writes:
"Oro Valley resident Art Segal spoke out against the proposed tax rebate, citing the company’s profits in 2007 on an estimated $38 billion in sales worldwide."
According to Fortune magazine, Sanofi-Aventis had $36.99 billion in sales and $5 billion in profits during fiscal 2007.
Dave writes---"Sure, Sanofi-Aventis is a multi-billion-dollar, profitable business that probably doesn’t need a tax break. So what. They can do business anywhere in the world. They have chosen to do business in Oro Valley, and we ought to be very happy about that. It has been estimated that this project has a long-term economic impact of $110 million. On behalf of the community, government can extend a hand, and say “thanks, and welcome.”
So---- As I see it, it comes down to a question of----as some Council Members stated, is it better to give them the "rebate" as a way of saying "thank you," or is it better to say "thank you" and offer what their chairman stated during groundbreaking----something like Oro Valley is a great place to work, live and raise a family.
Considering the economics, I believe a "Thank You," should suffice. What do you think?
Read Patrick's article here.
http://www.explorernews.com/article/show/21714
Read Dave's editoral here.
http://www.explorernews.com/article/show/21696
8 comments:
Since you asked.....
I think your position is narrow minded.
I agree that $360,000 is not a minor sum but as Perry and others have pointed out it is a small percentage of the overall income Oro Valley will realize on this project alone. And if we look at it as seed money, that is to encourage others to build green and locate their business in Oro Valley, then I think it is money well spent.
These are uncertain economic times, but demonstrating that we are truly serious about helping to protect our enviornment by putting some our money where our mouth is, sends a strong and positive message to others who may be sitting on the proverbial "should I relocate to Oro Valley fence".
"Thank you" is nice but a cash investment carries far more weight.
Could it be your "giveaway as much as we can" to the Vestars of the world that was one reason you couldn't win an election in FOUR tries?
Although Hi-Tech incentives have merit, there is still no reason to do so unless it helps the citizens of Oro Valley.
In this case,it is nothing but a "nice gesture."
Let's not tax the people and give millions to the big developers.
We all welcome Sanofi-Aventis, but Oro Valley can do more with the $360,000 than a company with FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in 2007 profits!
The ONLY incentive that should be given ANY business to locate here is that Oro Valley is nice place to work, to recieve an education, to enjoy the outdoors, to enjoy the culture, in short, locate here because we might have what you want and you simply want to be here. Having lived in Raleigh, NC for 15 years, with it's enormous Research Triangle Park, along with Cary and it's business parks, the big attractions were not free $$$, but were the natural amenities, the schools, vibrancy, family friendly communities, the central proximity to the Northeast , the Southeast, etc. etc. etc. Having been involved in Relocation Programs during the mid-1990s my experience indicated that it was not handouts that brought companies it was LOCATION and QUALITY OF LIFE! Over the long haul this Town, OV, cannot compete with the likes of Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary, North Carolina, it cannot compete with Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Texas, it cannot compete with the Northwest; the reasons - those areas already have had infrastructures in place
and EVOLUTIONARY progression for years and years; on the other hand Oro Valley is trying to revolutionize itself and can't even figure out that the area is not condusive to most business growth. Our 'anchor' to the south, Tucson, has been sitting on it's ass for so many years it most certainly doesn't contribute to making this area a player in being a business hub. Also,the layout of the land does not allow for much
business growth. So, what does one do? Suck it up, ask yourself what you really are, what you really need, come to a realistic conclusion and go from there.
Want a makeover? Careful, you just might botch the operation. Want to be more involved in an empirical business atmosphere, go elsewhere and let us be.
Art, you continue to show your pettiness. Is it not within your power to make a civil comment on an issue unless you throw in some incorrect personal attack?
Zev, on the other hand made his point, supported it with some personal observation and came up with a conclusion. I think the business atmosphere has changed since his time in NC and he contributes to my point that we have difficulty competing with some of the cities he mentioned. But the reality is that we MUST compete with those cities if we want to become a player in the bio-tech arena. One way we can do that is with economic incentives.
Remember the old expression about how chickens come home to roost, my friend.
Thinker,
Zev is right. I also moved here for the LOCATION (beautiful scenery, lots of wildlife) and QUALITY OF LIFE (clean air, lots of sunshine, etc.) and I didn't need an economic incentive to do so!
Sanofi-Aventis doesn't need any money to locate here...they're ALREADY HERE and they made BILLIONS in profits last year.
Taking tax money from the hard-working middle class (the backbone of this country) and giving it to billionaires is INSANE!
You say this will encourage others to build "green" but wouldn't we then also have to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to EVERY company who wants to locate here and build green?
We'll just be setting ourselves up for a never-ending cycle of corporate welfare.
Look what we got for our $23 million dollar gift to Vestar! A great big kick in the teeth, that's what!
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Cowgirl...obviously, you and I disagree on what we got for 23 million. What we really did get was far in excess of $150,000,000 in tax revenues over 20 years. Such a deal!!!
You and I moving here and a major corporation moving here doesn't relate. Shareholders don't give a hoot about the things you mentioned.
Incentives come in many forms. It may be fast tracking a project (saves money) and doesn't cost a dime. In the case of Sanofi giving a reduction in construction tax for building green(saves money) and doesn't cost a dime. How would you like a world where there were no incentives? There would never be a sale on shoes, dresses, coffee or milk. Incentives are part of our culture and when used properly, they are a positive.
Thinker,
Yes, but if there's a sale on shoes, dresses, coffee or milk, that sale applies to EVERYONE, not just one person or a small group of people. And I would buy the shoes or the coffee even if it wasn't on sale because I was going to buy it anyway, just like Sanofi is going to build their green building with or without the "sale" price.
You say Vestar's mall will give us $150 million in tax revenues over 20 years. Those are projections that you cannot guarantee just as the projections for the other two area malls fell far short of what was promised. A projection is not a FACT, a word you like to often throw around.
What is a FACT is that Vestar used words like upscale and extraordinary and then brought us Wal-Mart and a bunch of other run-of-the-mill stores.
You thrive on facts, Thinker. Well, there they are.
Cowgirl.....
Then we will use your rules.
By your definition the 23 million that you keep tossing around isn't fact either...it's just a projection. So if we don't get out tax money Vestar doesn't get their incentive. That's just one of the benefits to OV. If the sales don't mature as projected then the incentive is reduced proportionately.
There is no "giveaway" unless we(OV) make money. But then none of the anti-crowd wants to talk about that.
Post a Comment