[CPEO-BIF] Subsidies

Thu Oct 26 06:13:38 PDT 2006

I would like to weigh in on this with an additional perspective and 
observation. Brownfield developers take pride in recognizing value that 
others don't see, and then bringing their skills to bear in realizing that 
value. Some of us like to raise the bar on that challenge, and take special 
joy in seeing the positive impact that we can make on a community by 
redeveloping the especially nasty and hopeless property that is like a 
cancer in a neighborhood.

This is particularly true with respect to orphaned and abandoned sites, some 
of which are stuck in Bankruptcy. These sites are typically so far upside 
down financially that any hope of break-even, much less a profit, is simply 
not possible. In these cases, a public-private partnership that includes 
subsidies and all of the economic development tools in the tool box is 
required just to start at ground zero.

However, community leaders need to step up and take control of a very 
critical component that helps cause this upside down state. Specifically, 
they need to quickly step in and re-assess the properties to reflect their 
true negative value. Instead, the properties just continue to accrue taxes 
and exorbitant interest at a ridiculously high value attributed when the 
property was once operating and of value. This impediment is one of the most 
difficult to remove, and using valuable subsidies for this is just wasteful 
and completely unnecessary.

Bill Cocose
Atwater Capital, LLC
561-997-8525

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Paterson" <rgfp at mail.utexas.edu>
To: <lsiegel at cpeo.org>; "'Brownfields Internet Forum'" 
<brownfields at list.cpeo.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:39 PM
Subject: RE: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies

> Austin TX's Greater Chamber of Commerce commissioned an economic 
> development
> study back in 1995 asking how they could continue to grow their silicon
> hills and maintain quality of life...the answer from the consultants was 
> to
> continue to pursue a "balanced sustainable development" approach...the 
> high
> tech sector wants a highly educated work force, a fantastic community that
> offers its employees great schools, world class cultural entertainment and
> the best outdoor scenic beauty and recreational opportunities--why, so its
> easy to steal the best and the brightest talent from silicon valley and 
> from
> other high tech firms in the US, and keep em happy while in Austin...so
> investing in the open space system was a priority, but also dealing with 
> the
> growing gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" was also noted --  
> since
> they noted gang activity and other crime/social problems often stem from
> lack of opportunity for all sectors of a community...in short, the
> consultants concurred with Lenny's point, of course the corporations will
> extract as much subsidy as they can along the way (and yes other 
> locational
> factors do come into play such as freight, hwy and air cargo access etc.,)
>
> Cheers
>
> Bob
>
> Robert G. Paterson
> Associate Professor
> Co-Director, Center for Sustainable Development
> 1 University Station B7500
> School of Architecture
> The University of Texas
> Austin TX 78712-1160
> 512-471-0734
> Fax 512-471-0716
> rgfp at mail.utexas.edu
>
>
> Whatever befalls the earth
> Befalls the sons and daughters
> Of the earth.
> We did not weave the web of life;
> We are merely a strand in it.
> Whatever we do to the web.
> We do it to ourselves.
> -Chief Seattle (1788-1866)
> Native American (Suquamish leader)
>
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
> use of the individual or entity named above.
>
> Distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you 
> received
> this communication in error, please immediately notify me by telephone at
> the number above, and destroy the message.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: brownfields-bounces at list.cpeo.org
> [mailto:brownfields-bounces at list.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Lenny Siegel
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 12:10 PM
> To: Brownfields Internet Forum
> Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies
>
> I am not naive enough to believe that either developers or manufacturers
> make location decisions based solely on cost-benefit calculations. Often
> they seem to use proposed subsidies in one location to extract goodies
> from other communities - where they intend to invest, in any case.
>
> Corporate location is as much a political process as an economic
> decision. Communities that wish to attract discretionary investment must
> recognize that the overall image of their local environment is as
> important as specific subsidies.
>
> Back to my days writing about the semiconductor industry: I believed,
> and I continue to believe, that the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area
> attracted significant high-tech investments because it was perceived as
> a place that prized its natural environment. In turn, that helped
> companies attract the best and the brightest from a global job 
> marketplace.
>
> Lenny
>
>
> Bruce-Sean Reshen wrote:
>> As always Lenny, you were ahead of your time.  The concept is sound,
>> though the mathematics become difficult.  Your concept assumes that
>> developers are able to evaluate and quantify such public benefits and
>> properly weigh them against the alternative of a direct subsidy which
>> they better understand and appreciate.
>>
>> Bruce-Sean Reshen
>> p. 203-259-1850
>> c. 917-757-5925
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: brownfields-bounces at list.cpeo.org
>> [mailto:brownfields-bounces at list.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Lenny Siegel
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 12:23 PM
>> To: Brownfields Internet Forum
>> Subject: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies
>>
>> Long before I ever heard the word Brownfields, I worked with community
>> groups around the Southwestern U.S. challenging the way that their local
>>
>> government were offering subsidies to high-tech companies to locate in
>> their communities.
>>
>> We argued that it is possible to attract investment by investing public
>> resources in education, infrastructure, housing, and even environmental
>> protection. Companies that have a choice where to locate need those
>> investments, not only because they directly benefit, but because they
>> need to recruit employees from a global workforce, and those potential
>> employees look at the qualify of life in areas where they might move.
>>
>> While direct funding or tax abatement may indeed be useful, it should be
>>
>> viewed within the context of a full range of public investments designed
>>
>> to promote economic development. The advantage of spending money on
>> education, infrastructure, housing, and even environmental protection is
>>
>> that it benefits existing residents, too.
>>
>> Lenny
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Lenny Siegel
> Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
> c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
> Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
> Fax: 650/961-8918
> http://www.cpeo.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Brownfields mailing list
> Brownfields at list.cpeo.org
> http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields
> _______________________________________________
> Brownfields mailing list
> Brownfields at list.cpeo.org
> http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields
> 