481 replies to this topic

[Lone Ranger]

Great news.  Not to temper enthusiasium, but show me five more moves just like this one, and maybe we're getting somewhere.

Or maybe not.  Again, not to temper enthusiasm, but what kind of carrot did we have to dangle to get them to come here?  How big a carrot was it?

[Pseudo_Work]

Lone Ranger, on Oct 16 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

Great news.  Not to temper enthusiasium, but show me five more moves just like this one, and maybe we're getting somewhere.

Or maybe not.  Again, not to temper enthusiasm, but what kind of carrot did we have to dangle to get them to come here?  How big a carrot was it?

Why does it matter?  They're still coming whether you shoot the idea down or not.

[Lone Ranger]

Pseudo_Work, on Oct 17 2008, 03:50 AM, said:

Why does it matter?  They're still coming whether you shoot the idea down or not.

Why does it matter?  It matters because, depending on how big the golden carrot we lured them with, their coming here might bring us no net benefit, or very little.  

They sound like a nice business, but they're not in business for the sake of goodwill.  They made the decision to come here for financial reasons, so it would be nice to know exactly how much we sacrificed to get them here.  Or in other words, they're coming, but how much good (if any) are they doing us by coming?

[RLucas83]

Lone Ranger, on Oct 17 2008, 08:54 AM, said:

Why does it matter?  It matters because, depending on how big the golden carrot we lured them with, their coming here might bring us no net benefit, or very little.  

They sound like a nice business, but they're not in business for the sake of goodwill.  They made the decision to come here for financial reasons, so it would be nice to know exactly how much we sacrificed to get them here.  Or in other words, they're coming, but how much good (if any) are they doing us by coming?

Even if they don't pay a dime in taxes, they are still bringing over 150 good paying jobs with another 100 or so likely over the next 3 years. Each of those people are taxed,  go shopping, eat at restaraunts.  Plus as a large publicly traded firm with many vendors, their clients and business partners will fly into our airports, stay at out hotels, eat at our restaraunts.

So even if they gave them EVERYTHING and the kitchen sink too, everyone still wins

If they gave them nothing, nothing is what we get in return.

Id say one of the #1 public misconceptions, ( and this runs Ramapnt in Rhode Island) is that providing tax incentives "costs" them money.  No money ever leaves the coffers, it just doesnt come in. Id rather have no money come in, but  250 good paying jobs to show, then have no money coming  in, with no new jobs to show for it. Thats thw whole basis for economic development.

[CtownMikey]

Lone Ranger, on Oct 16 2008, 08:52 PM, said:

Great news.  Not to temper enthusiasium, but show me five more moves just like this one, and maybe we're getting somewhere.

Or maybe not.  Again, not to temper enthusiasm, but what kind of carrot did we have to dangle to get them to come here?  How big a carrot was it?

And I would say that the faster that the current phases of ALCO fills up, the faster they move on to the next phases and hopefully my favorite part..! the landscaping and river improvements!!

[RLucas83]

CtownMikey, on Oct 17 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

And I would say that the faster that the current phases of ALCO fills up, the faster they move on to the next phases and hopefully my favorite part..! the landscaping and river improvements!!

Yes I would really love to see some riverwalk improvements and I think once thats done, we could see some bars and restarauntsbwteween ALCO and the Mall.

Then ideally one could walk direct from ALCO  all the way down to the new park where I-195 is now with plenty of shops and restaraunts along the way. Maybe even a little San Antonio style boat ride thing  from end to end. But notably more dining, bars and people walking around will make it a much more attactive area and futher encourage people to love and/or work downtown, and not in some office park.  or suburb.

[Lone Ranger]

RLucas83, on Oct 17 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

Even if they don't pay a dime in taxes, they are still bringing over 150 good paying jobs with another 100 or so likely over the next 3 years. Each of those people are taxed,  go shopping, eat at restaraunts.  Plus as a large publicly traded firm with many vendors, their clients and business partners will fly into our airports, stay at out hotels, eat at our restaraunts.

And there's an exact dollar amount that can be attached to each of those items.  All I'm saying is, somebody at the state ran a cost/benefit analysis before offering UNFI a deal, and I'd love to know what the result of that study was.  In dollars and cents, even if they don't pay a dime in taxes, as you say, how much money does their arrival pump into our economy?

Quote

So even if they gave them EVERYTHING and the kitchen sink too

Quite likely, as companies aren't beating down the doors to get into the Ocean State.

Quote

If they gave them nothing, nothing is what we get in return.

Id say one of the #1 public misconceptions, ( and this runs Ramapnt in Rhode Island) is that providing tax incentives "costs" them money.  No money ever leaves the coffers, it just doesnt come in. Id rather have no money come in, but  250 good paying jobs to show, then have no money coming  in, with no new jobs to show for it. Thats thw whole basis for economic development.

Come down off your soap box.  You're super-imposing your pet peeve on my comment.  I didn't say it cost us anything, in the sense that we're losing money, to get them here.  But we sacrificed some of our potential profit, certainly.  How much?  I just want to know the net, that's all.

[Pseudo_Work]

Lone Ranger, on Oct 17 2008, 07:10 PM, said:

Come down off your soap box.  You're super-imposing your pet peeve on my comment.  I didn't say it cost us anything, in the sense that we're losing money, to get them here.  But we sacrificed some of our potential profit, certainly.  How much?  I just want to know the net, that's all.

But by saying that we've sacrificed a certain amount of profit, you presume that they would have moved here regardless of any tax incentives offered.  As much as I hate the sort of negativity I'm about to use, we both know that they probably wouldn't have moved here, so frankly it seems like you're barking up the wrong tree by crying foul over this already.  It comes off as frivolous.

[Lone Ranger]

Pseudo_Work, on Oct 17 2008, 10:33 PM, said:

But by saying that we've sacrificed a certain amount of profit, you presume that they would have moved here regardless of any tax incentives offered.  As much as I hate the sort of negativity I'm about to use, we both know that they probably wouldn't have moved here, so frankly it seems like you're barking up the wrong tree by crying foul over this already.  It comes off as frivolous.

No, I'm not presuming they would have moved here.  In fact, I'm absolutely certain they wouldn't, which is why I'm presuming that they received a massive tax break to come.  But it remains that, had they moved here without incentives, the full benefit of their coming would probably have been much greater than their actual coming, with incentives, will be.  

I don't think there's any way to spin UNFI in ALCO as bad news.  It's just not as good as it could have been, period.

You seem extremely sensitive of what you call negativity.  It's not negativity to say that Rhode Island, especially in its current state, isn't a place most businesses want to be.  Life is hard in Rhode Island (and Providence) right now.  Unfortunate, but that's just the way it is.  Relax a little.

[FjmArch]

Lone Ranger, on Oct 18 2008, 04:31 AM, said:

No, I'm not presuming they would have moved here. In fact, I'm absolutely certain they wouldn't, which is why I'm presuming that they received a massive tax break to come. But it remains that, had they moved here without incentives, the full benefit of their coming would probably have been much greater than their actual coming, with incentives, will be.

I don't think there's any way to spin UNFI in ALCO as bad news. It's just not as good as it could have been, period.

You seem extremely sensitive of what you call negativity. It's not negativity to say that Rhode Island, especially in its current state, isn't a place most businesses want to be. Life is hard in Rhode Island (and Providence) right now. Unfortunate, but that's just the way it is. Relax a little.

LR:
There isn't a state in the nation that can lure an existing business of this size without incentive. With that said, you are correct this process along with anything that the government in this state does needed/needs to be more transparent. Not just from the Administration but from all of the divisions of State government.

What this does allow for is the businesses that are already here that don't have tax incentives to grow thus increasing the tax base. Having a larger company at ALCO will benefit the restaurant(s), nearby stores.........

[Pseudo_Work]

Lone Ranger, on Oct 18 2008, 01:31 AM, said:

You seem extremely sensitive of what you call negativity.  It's not negativity to say that Rhode Island, especially in its current state, isn't a place most businesses want to be.  Life is hard in Rhode Island (and Providence) right now.  Unfortunate, but that's just the way it is.  Relax a little.

I'm sensitive about it because this is a stupid and pointless thing to argue about.  The deal was made, the business is coming, and we've already established that the net outcome is beneficial, because it's better than no business at all.  So, why bother trying to stir up controversy over whatever back room deal was made here?  It achieves nothing but what I just mentioned:  controversy, at the end of which everyone will reach the conclusion that there's no reason to be arguing, and everyone's time will have been wasted.

Edited by Pseudo_Work, 18 October 2008 - 01:15 PM.

[CtownMikey]

^^ I can answer that!

Because until a few generations die out and having a pessimist attitude is no longer the trendy thing to have, any new development posted on here will result in less trees, higher taxes, and more surface parking.



I think we're lucky to be dealing with budget/zoning/housing/credit issues now, when the 195 land isn't ready for development. I'm not saying it will be resolved by then (I have no clue really and maybe I should post about something that I haven't educated myself on), but we could hope that in about 4 years, things will be better for the state and country, and we will hopefully be in the position to benefit the most.

The next 10 years here should be very exciting..   but my friends have called me an optimist. . .







GO BRITNEY SPEARS! <3

[Lone Ranger]

Pseudo_Work, on Oct 18 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

I'm sensitive about it because this is a stupid and pointless thing to argue about.  The deal was made, the business is coming, and we've already established that the net outcome is beneficial, because it's better than no business at all.  So, why bother trying to stir up controversy over whatever back room deal was made here?  It achieves nothing but what I just mentioned:  controversy, at the end of which everyone will reach the conclusion that there's no reason to be arguing, and everyone's time will have been wasted.

Fella, I just have to laugh.  If your time is so precious, why are you hanging around a message board?  I've got nothing but time, and this conversation has been nothing for me but a harmless bit of idle chatter.  Sorry to upset your equilibrium.

You've clearly established that you don't mind back room deals.  I guess that makes you a real Rhode Islander.  

[CtownMikey]

Lone Ranger, on Oct 18 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

Fella, I just have to laugh.  If your time is so precious, why are you hanging around a message board?  I've got nothing but time, and this conversation has been nothing for me but a harmless bit of idle chatter.  Sorry to upset your equilibrium.

You've clearly established that you don't mind back room deals.  I guess that makes you a real Rhode Islander.  

ASSumptions aside.. what literal proof is there of a backroom dea...OHH wait there is none.

[Lone Ranger]

CtownMikey, on Oct 18 2008, 09:00 PM, said:

ASSumptions aside.. what literal proof is there of a backroom dea...OHH wait there is none.

I dunno, aside from the paragraph in the PBN explicitly saying that we got them here through incentives, I guess you're right, I have precious little reason to assume that we offered any incentives.

Allow me to enlighten you, Mikey:

Quote

The decision [for UNFI to come to Providence] is the result of about six months of negotiations involving the state and the city that dangled various incentives to bring the nearly $1 billion company from its rural, northeastern Connecticut location to Providence.

Oh and then there's this from the ProJo article announcing UNFI's decision:

Quote

The company has been offered tax incentives at the state and municipal level, but the packages would require approvals by the Providence City Council and the General Assembly, sources said. The incentives are based, in part, on the number of jobs the company brings to the state and include a type of tax reduction. More details are expected at the announcement.

So you tell me, Mikey, was a deal made or not?

Now, what are the specifics of said deal?  John Q. Public has yet to be invited into the loop, I'm afraid.

Edited by Lone Ranger, 19 October 2008 - 02:04 AM.

[CtownMikey]

how is it "backroom" when it is being made public, that is my point...........

I can read, and I did look through the articles..

[runawayjim]

CtownMikey, on Oct 19 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

how is it "backroom" when it is being made public, that is my point...........

I can read, and I did look through the articles..

i think his point is that the details of the deal weren't made public (though i'm sure if you asked, you'd learn the details).

[Pseudo_Work]

Lone Ranger, on Oct 18 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

You've clearly established that you don't mind back room deals.  I guess that makes you a real Rhode Islander.  

The idea that back room deals only happen in Rhode Island is ridiculous.  The relocation of any big company like this, anywhere, involves a back room deal, so don't try to use it to throw me a zinger about being some reckless guido Johnston type.  It looks tacky.

All I'm saying is:  the deal is done.  There's nothing that you can do about it at this point, and honestly there's no point poking holes in something that's already a done deal, and is a net gain for us anyway.  That's a Rhode Island thing to do, if I've ever heard it.

Edited by Pseudo_Work, 19 October 2008 - 06:40 PM.

[CtownMikey]

I guess I was wrong to assume that backroom deals strictly meant that some terms were agreed upon that the public is unaware of.. and for good reason..

I didn't really view the incentives that they mentioned publically in the articles as backroom deals.

Anyways, good for Providence to gain these high paying jobs.

[Pseudo_Work]

CtownMikey, on Oct 19 2008, 05:59 PM, said:

I guess I was wrong to assume that backroom deals strictly meant that some terms were agreed upon that the public is unaware of.. and for good reason..

I didn't really view the incentives that they mentioned publically in the articles as backroom deals.

Anyways, good for Providence to gain these high paying jobs.

I don't exactly regard them as back room deals either, 'cause like I said, they're ubiquitous.  Pretty much every big corporate transaction involves them.  I just use the term so that people can understand what I mean.  and I agree, good for us.