Google Memo

Google Memo - To: Peter Tercell CC: Josh DeBottis From:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
To: Peter Tercell CC: Josh DeBottis From: 1732 Re: State regulation of incentive packages would protect towns Date: 9/13/07 Because allowing incentive-seeking corporations to pit localities against each other is detrimental to the economic viability of such towns, state governments should enact oversight over all proposed incentive packages. Putting negotiating supremacy in companies’ hands encourages towns to outbid each other to unsustainable levels, setting up a situation in which companies never have to commit to a location long-term and providing only a brief psychological boost for a struggling town at the expense of stable finances. Not wanting its cities to end up in these predicaments, state governments could mandate majority authorization of any proposed move and evaluate proposals by requiring a plan to generate additional revenue and a timetable of debt repayment. Additionally, compelling companies to sign terms of usage on their properties would help towns protect their large investments. Incentives Bidding Wars Damage Local Economies The current incentive system fosters unaffordable bidding wars between towns competing for a company’s new development. When towns make their bids, they can
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/07/2008 for the course PPS 55 taught by Professor Kelley during the Fall '07 term at Duke.

Page1 / 4

Google Memo - To: Peter Tercell CC: Josh DeBottis From:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online