urbanSTL

dweebe wrote:

bonwich wrote:

stlmike wrote:

The question isn't whether the move is a good thing, it's whether the expansion of jobs is a good a thing. Of course it is. Doug wasn't questioning any of those things you are, he was questioning whether adding jobs is a good thing or not. Whether or not they moved to downtown or stayed in Clayton, adding 1200 jobs is going to be a good thing for the region, even if those jobs are filled from people within the region.

That's not how I read Doug, and that's certainly not how I read most of his detractors.



If there are, in fact, 600 existing Centene jobs in Clayton, Centene plans to create 600 more local jobs in the next three years. But they were going to do that anyway, whether they stayed in Clayton or moved downtown. That means, regionally, we just ponied up $130,000 per new job.



All that over and above the fact that we subsidized a new stadium to the tune of tens of millions only to be told that we needed to subsidize the now "prime" real estate adjacent to it by what, $100M, just to get it built. And now we have to pay a company to move into the space.



I'm sorry, the economics here are fuzzy at best. [/i]

Thanks Joe. I was pretty happy about this news but now see that we got screwed on the deal. $130,000 a person to keep the jobs here. Once again St. Louis does the wrong thing.



Like the Rams I'm betting Centene will be out of here in 10 years when someone else offers a better deal.

stlmike wrote:Doug has stated that it is bad for the region, but did not elaborate on any of the specific and precise points that you have made.

bonwich wrote:


We only got "screwed" by Clayton.

bonwich wrote:

dweebe wrote:

bonwich wrote:

That's not how I read Doug, and that's certainly not how I read most of his detractors.



If there are, in fact, 600 existing Centene jobs in Clayton, Centene plans to create 600 more local jobs in the next three years. But they were going to do that anyway, whether they stayed in Clayton or moved downtown. That means, regionally, we just ponied up $130,000 per new job.



All that over and above the fact that we subsidized a new stadium to the tune of tens of millions only to be told that we needed to subsidize the now "prime" real estate adjacent to it by what, $100M, just to get it built. And now we have to pay a company to move into the space.



I'm sorry, the economics here are fuzzy at best. [/i]

Thanks Joe. I was pretty happy about this news but now see that we got screwed on the deal. $130,000 a person to keep the jobs here. Once again St. Louis does the wrong thing.



Like the Rams I'm betting Centene will be out of here in 10 years when someone else offers a better deal.

You need a good sarcasm emoticon, Pan Dweebski. I'm betting it was (sarcasm), but a casual reader won't be able to tell for sure.



We only got "screwed" by Clayton. It's positive that Centene is staying, and it's positive that it's a growing company. The negative is that once again the City had to throw around huge incentives (and that everyone in the region somehow still believes that only Fortune 1000 companies are growth engines, when in fact the vast majority of job growth in America comes from small business. But that's a debate for another thread).



And the Pollyanna crowd completely dismissed the USA Today article, but someday y'all are gonna have to come up with an answer to the questions: 1) How much subsidy is too much? 2) Is, as the article implies, all this subsidy merely a diversion from the lack of critical-infrastructure improvement?

SoulardD wrote:This is getting ridiculous. I simply can't see how this isn't a net positive for the city. Maybe they aren't collecting the tax money they would've sans incentives, but who cares? More jobs downtown, more buildings downtown and construction crews building them, more people inhabiting downtown at least part of their days, more credibility for other companies to move downtown, etc. There are many benefits, tangible and intangible to this deal. How about the moral victory the city has in gaining the biggest company to city limits since the 50's?



Also, am I misunderstanding something here or are we not paying Centene $130,000 per job but instead not charging them that in taxes? So we don't gain $78 million that we never had or would've had if they stayed in Clayton or moved to Colorado or wherever. If I'm correct about that, this whole argument about it is just stupid. We should be happy we have more jobs, buildings, and people downtown. All the benefits they bring along are icing on the cake.

Did he? I can't scroll back far enough to find out. I do see him saying it wasn't a great regional gain, but I can't find him saying that it was bad for the region.



I'm saying pretty much the same thing. It's better than if Centene had left, but to all outward appearances, Centene was pretty happy here until the whole eminent domain debacle. And now it's costing us at least $78M to keep 'em.

SoulardD wrote:This is getting ridiculous. I simply can't see how this isn't a net positive for the city. Maybe they aren't collecting the tax money they would've sans incentives, but who cares? More jobs downtown, more buildings downtown and construction crews building them, more people inhabiting downtown at least part of their days, more credibility for other companies to move downtown, etc. There are many benefits, tangible and intangible to this deal. How about the moral victory the city has in gaining the biggest company to city limits since the 50's?



Also, am I misunderstanding something here or are we not paying Centene $130,000 per job but instead not charging them that in taxes? So we don't gain $78 million that we never had or would've had if they stayed in Clayton or moved to Colorado or wherever. If I'm correct about that, this whole argument about it is just stupid. We should be happy we have more jobs, buildings, and people downtown. All the benefits they bring along are icing on the cake.

bonwich wrote:How many of the following were "net positives" to the City?



- Getting TWA to move here.

- Building St. Louis Centre

- Building the Gateway Mall

- Renovating Union Station

- Building the now-Scottrade Center

- Building the now-Jones Dome



Some might have been, but I think all of them had questionable total payoff.



Ironically to some of you, I was a regular on the news-talk shows in the early '80s arguing about the need for subsidies for things like the Southwestern Bell building. And the counterargument then, as it could be now, is that there must be an end to it all -- downtown has to get to the point where it's attractive without subsidy. I don't see that point anytime in the near future, especially given that the "absolute prime" real estate downtown -- already in a site big enough to build upon -- is requiring megasubsidy.

Getting TWA to move here.

bonwich wrote:How many of the following were "net positives" to the City?



- Getting TWA to move here.

- Building St. Louis Centre

- Building the Gateway Mall

- Renovating Union Station

- Building the now-Scottrade Center

- Building the now-Jones Dome



Some might have been, but I think all of them had questionable total payoff.



Ironically to some of you, I was a regular on the news-talk shows in the early '80s arguing about the need for subsidies for things like the Southwestern Bell building. And the counterargument then, as it could be now, is that there must be an end to it all -- downtown has to get to the point where it's attractive without subsidy. I don't see that point anytime in the near future, especially given that the "absolute prime" real estate downtown -- already in a site big enough to build upon -- is requiring megasubsidy.

dweebe wrote:[for real, not sarcastic]St. Louis City totally effed this deal up. Money that should be going to schools or roads will be ending up lining the pockets of the owners/upper management of Centene who I'm 99.9% sure live in Ladue or Frontenac. Can we ever do anything right in this town? This place sucks a**. [/for real, not sarcastic]

Doug wrote:We assume they would have left. The problem with these negotiations is that government is at a huge disadvantage. They need revenue and can't really be sure if a corporation will actually move or simply wants more incentive to stay. So rather than having Slay's opponent with the slogan "He Lost Centene" or "He Lost the Cards," we pay.

Doug wrote:We assume they would have left. The problem with these negotiations is that government is at a huge disadvantage. They need revenue and can't really be sure if a corporation will actually move or simply wants more incentive to stay. So rather than having Slay's opponent with the slogan "He Lost Centene" or "He Lost the Cards," we pay.

stlmike wrote:But you do have it wrong. We're not paying 78 million, we're just not charging them that much where we could have been. While Clayton is doing fine, this brings more balance to the region by having the first big positive gain in jobs for downtown St Louis in decades, it creates more incentives for people to live nearer to the city, and it is more people spending money in our central business district.

bonwich wrote:

stlmike wrote:But you do have it wrong. We're not paying 78 million, we're just not charging them that much where we could have been. While Clayton is doing fine, this brings more balance to the region by having the first big positive gain in jobs for downtown St Louis in decades, it creates more incentives for people to live nearer to the city, and it is more people spending money in our central business district.

This is the standing TIF/etc. argument: It's not really a subsidy, because it wasn't there to begin with. It was the same argument made with property tax abatement in the '80s. Nonetheless, I bet Centene thinks it's getting a real $78M, and that money wasn't just "created." It's more of a bet-on-the-come thing, for which I'd offer the St. Louis Marketplace and the Robert E. Lee as examples of real-life instances where TIFs actually cost the City money.



And you're getting all caught up in that Civic Progress/Big Business mythology again. I bet there were lots more jobs created downtown roughly 1995-2002 than this will create, with new biz like Asychrony and expansion in the creative sector (Zipatoni, Phoenix) and two or three whole floors by the big toy/incentive company on Tenth Street at Wash Ave.



Again -- not saying it's a "bad thing." Just that it's not as "historic" as it's being hyped.

bonwich wrote:Ironically to some of you, I was a regular on the news-talk shows in the early '80s arguing about the need for subsidies for things like the Southwestern Bell building. And the counterargument then, as it could be now, is that there must be an end to it all -- downtown has to get to the point where it's attractive without subsidy. I don't see that point anytime in the near future, especially given that the "absolute prime" real estate downtown -- already in a site big enough to build upon -- is requiring megasubsidy.

bonwich wrote:Again -- not saying it's a "bad thing." Just that it's not as "historic" as it's being hyped.