RE: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies

["Robert Paterson" <rgfp@mail.utexas.edu>]

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@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@list.cpeo.org
[mailto:brownfields-bounces@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@list.cpeo.org
> [mailto:brownfields-bounces@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@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields
_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields