second that, the compromise makes some sense and love the idea that we get away from Aerotropolis tag and use BUILD
I'm not as enthusiastic. Is the dollar figure high enough? With all the other cities willing to throw their hat in the ring, now, are we making enough of a statement? Additionally, there is no guarantee this will fly in the senate.dredger wrote:second that, the compromise makes some sense and love the idea that we get away from Aerotropolis tag and use BUILD
It is better than nothing, I suppose.
I agree 100%.I'm not as enthusiastic. Is the dollar figure high enough? With all the other cities willing to throw their hat in the ring, now, are we making enough of a statement? Additionally, there is no guarantee this will fly in the senate.
It is better than nothing, I suppose.
Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but in terms of the China Hub, it seems this only adds $25 million back in for development around Lambert... I guess 8% of the original figure is better than nothing, but still disappointing.
I think your looking at the numbers wrong and why I think the media hasn't done anybody any favors by always stating the lump sum instead of the annual amount. I might need to be corrected, but I believe this is the correct way to look at it.Kingb4 wrote:I agree 100%.I'm not as enthusiastic. Is the dollar figure high enough? With all the other cities willing to throw their hat in the ring, now, are we making enough of a statement? Additionally, there is no guarantee this will fly in the senate.
It is better than nothing, I suppose.
Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but in terms of the China Hub, it seems this only adds $25 million back in for development around Lambert... I guess 8% of the original figure is better than nothing, but still disappointing.
Original proposal stripped by Senate, $300 million over 15 years or $20 million yearly
House compromise, eligible under BUILD tax credit that is capped at $25 million yearly.
What need to look at is the annual amount, $20 million a year under the original proposal vs competing for part of the BUILD tax credit that is capped at $25 million a year. Securing Half of the BUILD credits would give something in the order of 60%,
^Good points. I hadn't made that distinction until you pointed it out. I think the House proposal is viable, and it may even give taxpayers more security.
Thanks, Dredger. I was definitely not looking at it that way. Great breakdown.
Just got back from Jeff CIty with Count and Gone Corporate. Productive day. For the most part, opponents were more cordial and reasonable than I expected. I say "for the most part" because Crowell was kind of an ass. Count said I captured it when I said the look on his face was one of "disgust" when we were in his office, and we stood in front of him with smiles on our faces. It was one of the more awkward few minutes I've experienced in the past year.
As for the bill itself, I like the house version. It looks like the $25 million BUILD bill will provide enough incentives to possibly get this off the ground. The original bill capped warehouse credits at $2 million during the first fiscal year and $15 million during the second fiscal year. If the bill is what I think it is, it would provide enough incentives in the early years, and the legislature could authorize more credits once they see returns on investment. China hub proponents and reasonable opponents of the bill would all win. The senate, of course, could still screw things up.
Update: it looks like my optimism was short-lived:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/201 ... n-session/
They are meeting again at 7:00 to decide whether to continue working toward a final bill. Senate President Pro Tem Mayer said that the compromise is "a big, smelly kettle of fish.” Good old folksy Missouruh quote
As for the bill itself, I like the house version. It looks like the $25 million BUILD bill will provide enough incentives to possibly get this off the ground. The original bill capped warehouse credits at $2 million during the first fiscal year and $15 million during the second fiscal year. If the bill is what I think it is, it would provide enough incentives in the early years, and the legislature could authorize more credits once they see returns on investment. China hub proponents and reasonable opponents of the bill would all win. The senate, of course, could still screw things up.
Update: it looks like my optimism was short-lived:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/201 ... n-session/
They are meeting again at 7:00 to decide whether to continue working toward a final bill. Senate President Pro Tem Mayer said that the compromise is "a big, smelly kettle of fish.” Good old folksy Missouruh quote
Gone Corporate, Colby and I spent most of the day at the Capitol in Jefferson City to represent nextSTL and its position to support the tax credits for the international trade hub at Lambert Airport. We had good and constructive conversations with many Senators and Representatives from both sides. Will it make a difference ? We don't know. But it was democracy at work, so it was a good experience.
[For die hard Aerotropolis fans: here's Don Marsh, including my phone-in report from Jeff City on STL Public Radio this morning:]
St. Louis on the Air
[For die hard Aerotropolis fans: here's Don Marsh, including my phone-in report from Jeff City on STL Public Radio this morning:]
St. Louis on the Air
- 8,915
I would have loved to join you guys. Thanks so much for your hard work and determination fellas.
Good work, bros. What is the next political agenda that next stl shall address? How about consolidation of the city and county? Please?
- 3,776
Based upon what you guys heard, saw and discussed in Jeff City, do you think this bill will pass completely, partially or not at all? What are the % odds that one of these three things happens in your humble opinion? (if you were gambling men of course)
BTW, great work. I hope your efforts pay off. It is not easy trying to convince politicians to do something that is percieved as right for STL only, when in reality it is great for Missouri.
BTW, great work. I hope your efforts pay off. It is not easy trying to convince politicians to do something that is percieved as right for STL only, when in reality it is great for Missouri.
I'd hate to say it, but the China Hub is probably dead and has been dead for some time. Rural legislatures just dont want to do anything that would help St. Louis grow as a region. Even the local control measure is going down in flames. What has been accomplished in this special session? What gets accomplished in this state? What about the region? St. Louis is slowly drifting into irrelevance and you can thank local and state leaders for that.
The issue now is caps on historic preservation and low income tax credits. The House does not want to cap these programs and the Senate insists that they must be capped. The House is taking a pretty hard line, giving the Senate essentially a take it or leave it ultimatum. We'll see what happens. Not too optimistic.
I know these senators and reps want to get home, but this bill is far more important than their fishing trips this weekend. It's kind of frustrating that they are planning on just calling it quits if this isn't resolved soon, as in today or tomorrow at the latest.
I know these senators and reps want to get home, but this bill is far more important than their fishing trips this weekend. It's kind of frustrating that they are planning on just calling it quits if this isn't resolved soon, as in today or tomorrow at the latest.
- 641
I agree, it's dead. Question: could the St. Louis County and St. Louis City float a bond issue with the proceeds as incentives for freight forwarders, warehouses, etc....
^ I wish the state supported it, but the bottom line is that Missouri and St. Louis are about to completely blow it. The Chinese will get frustrated with our backwards agenda and set up shop in a state that actually functions productively.
One guy in the know in Jeff CIty said that he thinks Cincinnati has it if we drop the ball. I'd say who he is, but he repeatedly told us not to publish his name.
As Count just tweeted, the same "wise man" had a pretty good quote about the whole "winner and losers" bs. He said something like, "If tax credits are considered 'picking winners and losers,' then the same applies to every single instance of state budget allocation. I mean, that's what Jeff City does." This guy seemed pretty damn frustrated, and rightfully so.
From the Beacon: "I'm not optimistic at all," Mayer added later. "I guess you could say it's on life support."
http://stlbeacon.org/voices/blogs/polit ... -agreement
Honestly, I'm assuming the worst
As Count just tweeted, the same "wise man" had a pretty good quote about the whole "winner and losers" bs. He said something like, "If tax credits are considered 'picking winners and losers,' then the same applies to every single instance of state budget allocation. I mean, that's what Jeff City does." This guy seemed pretty damn frustrated, and rightfully so.
From the Beacon: "I'm not optimistic at all," Mayer added later. "I guess you could say it's on life support."
http://stlbeacon.org/voices/blogs/polit ... -agreement
Honestly, I'm assuming the worst
I know people on the board continually point to "rural" leaders leading the charge to kill the bill. My question is this: What do those leaders see as the gap filler? What do they think is the business model that could better create jobs other than then establishing ourselves as the dominant logistics center of excellence for goods that flow to China? Certainly they have to think that there is a better alternative, right? Certainly they wouldn't kill this legislation without a supplement? Or, do they think that China Hub is a great idea and one that should not be paid for with tax dollars?
I'm honestly trying to understand the opposition's perspective on this.
I'm honestly trying to understand the opposition's perspective on this.
Their entire philosophy is based on the idea that less government, lower taxes on businesses, and reduced reliance on government handouts in the form of subsidies, tax credits and TIFs are required in order to allow the private sector to grow.ttricamo wrote:I know people on the board continually point to "rural" leaders leading the charge to kill the bill. My question is this: What do those leaders see as the gap filler? What do they think is the business model that could better create jobs other than then establishing ourselves as the dominant logistics center of excellence for goods that flow to China? Certainly they have to think that there is a better alternative, right? Certainly they wouldn't kill this legislation without a supplement? Or, do they think that China Hub is a great idea and one that should not be paid for with tax dollars?
I'm honestly trying to understand the opposition's perspective on this.
It's a fundamentally flawed approached, based on the way things actually happen today, but you wanted the explanation.
Regarding the seemingly reasonable senators who oppose this, I got the sense that they don't think that their constituents would benefit much from this and that their primary duty is to the people who vote for them. As flawed and myopic as this might be, I kind of see where they are coming from. Myopic, but not batshit crazy
- 39
It's not just that they don't think it will help their constituents. It's that they don't want to be hammered for supporting a "welfare handout to St. Louis". Never mind that the St. Louis metro area generates far more in Missouri state taxes than it ever gets back in services - that fact doesn't fit into the culture-war narrative that is decisive for their constituents.Colby wrote:Regarding the seemingly reasonable senators who oppose this, I got the sense that they don't think that their constituents would benefit much from this and that their primary duty is to the people who vote for them. As flawed and myopic as this might be, I kind of see where they are coming from. Myopic, but not batshit crazy
It's touching that people keep looking for some economic rationality in the opposition to this, but it just isn't there. It's all cultural.