urbanSTL

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

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

bonwich wrote:I can make a pretty good argument that the whole TWA thing was a massive disaster that St. Louis continues to pay for. The amount of subsidy there continued to sweetheart gate deals at the airport, not to mention the implementation of what turned into the current American domination of Lambert. (And certainly not to mention the $2 Billlion wasted on the new runway.)



I'd be interested in hearing a countering view as to how TWA ever made any net contribution to the local economy.



That, by the way, was the only strong negative on my list. All the rest have decent counterbalancing arguments.

SoulardD wrote:

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.

^Can people see what I've been posting? Is it invisible?

TimeForGuinness wrote:

DeBaliviere wrote:

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

Fair enough - It's good to have some perspective with regards to something like this.

I agree, I really value the contribution bonwich has made here. It isn't all roses and it isn't "historic"...



...but it isn't all bad just yet.

Here is a theory. What if our labor force, through education, was so top notch that companies wanted to move here in order to tap that market.

Then we wouldn't have to pay.

But somehow we exempt companies from paying a large amount of taxes which could be used to benefit the schools.

Doug wrote:Here is a theory. What if our labor force, through education, was so top notch that companies wanted to move here in order to tap that market. Then we wouldn't have to pay. They would be knocking on the door. But somehow we exempt companies from paying a large amount of taxes which could be used to benefit the schools.



So what if we invested in education for future returns. We would forgo current benefits as in X corporation, but we could have exponentially more gains in the future through that labor force. That is economic growth. Investing in the future will have a "current cost" but higher down the road benefit.

SoulardD wrote:

TimeForGuinness wrote:

DeBaliviere wrote:

Fair enough - It's good to have some perspective with regards to something like this.

I agree, I really value the contribution bonwich has made here. It isn't all roses and it isn't "historic"...



...but it isn't all bad just yet.

Yeah, I like to think of the addition of jobs, people, and buildings downtown on a scale not seen in decades as 'not all bad just yet'.



The St. Louis mentality amazes me... in a bad way.

stlmike wrote:

Here is a theory. What if our labor force, through education, was so top notch that companies wanted to move here in order to tap that market.

This happens less often than comapnies sending recruiters to get "labor foces" to move out of their home city and into the city of the corporation.

SoulardD wrote:

TimeForGuinness wrote:

DeBaliviere wrote:

Fair enough - It's good to have some perspective with regards to something like this.

I agree, I really value the contribution bonwich has made here. It isn't all roses and it isn't "historic"...



...but it isn't all bad just yet.

Yeah, I like to think of the addition of jobs, people, and buildings downtown on a scale not seen in decades as 'not all bad just yet'.



The St. Louis mentality amazes me... in a bad way.

bonwich wrote:

SoulardD wrote:

TimeForGuinness wrote:

I agree, I really value the contribution bonwich has made here. It isn't all roses and it isn't "historic"...



...but it isn't all bad just yet.

Yeah, I like to think of the addition of jobs, people, and buildings downtown on a scale not seen in decades as 'not all bad just yet'.



The St. Louis mentality amazes me... in a bad way.

Depends. Some people might defiine the "St. Louis mentality" as "St. Louisans always find the negative."



Others, however, might define the recurring St. Louis mentality as "don't question our civic leaders. They know what's best for us. Sure, there have been lots of failures in the past, but this time it's different. And at least they're doing something."



I guess it's all in your point of view.

bonwich wrote:^ Did he? Somehow I didn't see "intelligent people who don't try to find the worst in everything" in his original definition of "the St. Louis mentality."



I did see, however, the hipper-than-thou-St. Louis-mentality, which roughly could be defined as "I don't agree with you, so I'll just say that you're always negative."