Jump to content

Baton Rouge Growth and Development


NCB

Recommended Posts

The Daily Report is reporting that a new free standing Children's Hospital associated with Our Lady of the Lake may be named in part after Shaq, who is a major supporter of a children's charity hospital.

The LSU partnership is critical for this to happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


They are outgrowing the 12-story office on Essen Lane...it would be nice to see a new high-rise tower for the CBD in downtown

 

CB&I expansion to bring 400 jobs to BR

 

CB&I is expanding in Louisiana by centralizing its government solutions division in Baton Rouge, a move that will create 400 new jobs and another 434 indirect jobs locally, state officials announced

 

http://theadvocate.com/home/6459597-125/cbi-expansion-to-bring-400

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Shaw reject the incentives? If you're going to bash Jindal atleast provide your proof.

And Shaw Group was bought out. So there's two mistakes.

 

http://www.brac.org/docs/catalyst/Catalyst_Q308.pdf

 

*Page 10

 

Shaw accepted the incentives package to bring 1,200 jobs to the Capital Area.  The fact Shaw Group was bought out after receiving a portion of incentives should be alarming, especially when local officials are doling out another incentives package to bring 800 fewer jobs to the area than originally promised. Nothing like good PR.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.brac.org/docs/catalyst/Catalyst_Q308.pdf

*Page 10

Shaw accepted the incentives package to bring 1,200 jobs to the Capital Area. The fact Shaw Group was bought out after receiving a portion of incentives should be alarming, especially when local officials are doling out another incentives package to bring 800 fewer jobs to the area than originally promised. Nothing like good PR.

First of all, incentive packages are stretched over several years. Secondly, the jobs a company promises are always at yearly levels. Meaning they promise 100 jobs in 2008, 100 additional in 2009, etc. Since the incentive was started in 2008 they COULD have already fullfilled their part of the agreement.

If they didnt, they (or the current owners) would be required to pay a percentage of the agreement back to the state that wasnt fullfiled.

So you still haven't proven a thing other than referencing a agreement from 5 years ago. So bashing Jindal is ridiculous when you don't know the terms of the agreement and if they were met. Bashing them for being bought out is just asinine on top of a ridiculous assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could have gone to multiple topics...Would like to see the new site plans w renderings for the Woodlands at Perkins Rowe

 

FedEx proposes new BR warehouse; IBM complex details listed ....Company files papers for possible site off Siegen Lane, I-10

 

FedEx is eyeing 15 acres north of Siegen Lane and Interstate 10 in Baton Rouge for a new distribution facility, documents filed with the city-parish Planning Commission show.

The Memphis shipping giant, however, was mum Thursday on the plans and what they mean for its existing FedEx Freight center on North Harrell’s Ferry Road on the north side of Interstate 12.

Also filed in time for the August planning commission meeting are plans for the new IBM office and residential complex downtown, as well as revisions to multifamily projects at Perkins Rowe and on Stanford Avenue.

 

The proposed FedEx property, located at the end of South Reitz Avenue and owned by Garry Lewis of Livingston, would be home to a 175,374-square-foot office and warehouse facility, according to the plans. That’s much larger than FedEx’s current 24,440-square-foot Harrell’s Ferry facility, which FedEx moved into in 2008. According to reports at the time, the company moved 52 employees from the Baton Rouge Metro Airport. FedEx would not provide any updated information on its local operations Thursday. FedEx Ground spokesman Jesse Bull said the company will not comment on the plans since the project is still in the preliminary stages.

 

Also on file Thursday were:

 

IBM COMPLEX: Site plans for the highly touted $55 million IBM complex, scheduled to open in 2015 along Lafayette Street downtown, show that project will consist of an eight-story software development center and an 85-unit residential tower, connected by a terrace.

 

The tower breakdown shows two three-bedroom units with a den; 12 two-bedroom units with a den; 21 one-bedroom units with a den; 35 one-bedroom units; and 15 studios.

Plans also call for nine row homes, 3,850 square feet of retail and 408 parking spaces.

 

LAKESHORE PLACE: Lakeshore Place, which is being developed by Mike Wampold on the east side of Stanford Avenue north of Bayou Duplantier, is looking to put its parking garage in the center of the four-story multifamily development. Lakeshore’s 241 units will consist of 98 one-bedroom units (16 with a study), 124 two-bedroom units and 19 three-bedroom units, as well as a pool and a courtyard.

 

THE WOODLANDS AT PERKINS ROWE: The developer is looking to change the layout of its 334-unit multifamily project on 20 acres just east of the NeuroMedical Center and south of Dawson Creek.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, incentive packages are stretched over several years. Secondly, the jobs a company promises are always at yearly levels. Meaning they promise 100 jobs in 2008, 100 additional in 2009, etc. Since the incentive was started in 2008 they COULD have already fullfilled their part of the agreement.

If they didnt, they (or the current owners) would be required to pay a percentage of the agreement back to the state that wasnt fullfiled.

So you still haven't proven a thing other than referencing a agreement from 5 years ago. So bashing Jindal is ridiculous when you don't know the terms of the agreement and if they were met. Bashing them for being bought out is just asinine on top of a ridiculous assumption.

 

 

Your comments address my concerns perfectly. Did Shaw meet their performances standards they were required to meet each year? Were they compensated for those accomplishments and did that factor into the states position for enacting another round of incentives for the new company? I think these are all valid questions. 

Also, arguing that my entire point is to bash Jindal is ridiculous, perhaps that is your own bias being revealed, you have made no comment about me referencing the Chamber, why is that?

 

See my first statement above for it is the point I've been alluding to this entire time. Is there something wrong with wanting to ensure a little accountability with out tax dollars?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comments address my concerns perfectly. Did Shaw meet their performances standards they were required to meet each year? Were they compensated for those accomplishments and did that factor into the states position for enacting another round of incentives for the new company? I think these are all valid questions.

Also, arguing that my entire point is to bash Jindal is ridiculous, perhaps that is your own bias being revealed, you have made no comment about me referencing the Chamber, why is that?

See my first statement above for it is the point I've been alluding to this entire time. Is there something wrong with wanting to ensure a little accountability with out tax dollars?

So let me make sure I understand. You bash the company and bash the governor and I call you out on you not knowing any facts to make those assumptions and you make yourself out to be on the right side of this conversation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't find the old articles, but wasn't Shaw supposed to bring 700 Jobs and up to 1200 jobs over the next 7 years or so, to Baton Rouge? Now Jindal and the Chamber are congratulating themselves on bringing 400 jobs to Baton Rouge instead?

Looks like they are trying to keep up their very public promise even as a new company. I was very concerned that they'd be moving everything to Houston. I'm glad they are staying....I'm sure the performance-based incentives carry over to the new owners.

There was really nothing Louisiana could have done to prevent that sale outside of bidding for the company outright which would have been a pointless disaster. Sometimes these things don't go our way....but many times in Shaw's history, they have. They've expanded rapidly by purchasing companies all over the world.....and now they are owned by an even larger firm.

With low natural gas prices, industrial expansion in Louisiana is just a matter of time. It's probably what made Shaw an attractive buy for CB&I. Many CB&I clients are moving to Louisiana or will be expanding there. I suspect that Shaw's decision to expand last year was going to happen regardless of the existence of incentives.

Since every city and state is trying to lower taxes or provide tax incentives to encourage development, businesses are shopping around for deal sweeteners (even Texas provides them in some cases, and New York has been pushing them very hard lately). The deal sweeteners provide an incentive for businesses and a political opportunity for politicans to spike the football. This state sponsored capitalism is common in China but it's unsavory to me, even if it is a way of life now in the US.

Louisiana has been aggressive with their incentives. In some ways, it's worked very well (Nucor, IBM, and what may be the single largest industrial investment in America- Sasol in Lake Charles). In other ways, the incentives just leave me kind of puzzled. The film industry incentives are one of them.

I'd much rather see major tax reform that benefits all businesses in Louisiana, but the legislature didn't have the stomach for it last year. It will probably be pushed again in the next session.

Edited by cajun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now now Cajun. It's much easier to blame people. It's obviously Jindal's and LED and other state agencys that oversee incentives fault for not using their abilities to see into the future that Shaw would be bought out 5 years after they gave Shaw some incentives.

 

 

Here we go again....

 

 

It is the states responsibility to maintain it's investment and many of the incentives have performance standards attached and if they are not met the money must be paid back to the state. However, there was no mention of the previous incentives to Shaw or the number of jobs previously promised, how successful the previous incentives were, a return on investment, or how the old incentives were handled by CBI.

 

 

I keep stressing that point but you are so caught up on Jindal. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.