From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 25 Oct 2006 17:12:39 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-brownfields |
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, -- 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@list.cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields |
Follow-Ups
|
References
| |
Prev by Date: RE: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies Next by Date: RE: [CPEO-BIF] Petoskey Pointe (MI) tax credit debate | |
Prev by Thread: RE: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies Next by Thread: RE: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies |