Re: Kansas, Missouri battle over companies
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:43 pm
In my opinion, it also shows that AMC has very little loyalty to Kansas City, their history here, and what this city has helped them to accomplish.KCPowercat wrote: 47 million in incentives for 400 employees. What a freaking joke.
I still don't understand how the residents in kansas want this.....they see their budget cut to nothing and then see these incentives.....not to mention most love to the burbs to get AWAY from the traffic and congestion that offices bring.....now they are bringing it to their doorstep which is going to end up costing them even more to maintain the infrastructure. Seems insane but spite is powerful emotion I guess.
Did you actually read any of the news coverage? KCMO is trying to keep the company. The problem is that the State of Kansas is offering a lot more than KCMO and State of Missouri can match.macnw wrote: I knew Mr Durwood, and he would not let this happen if he were alive. I cannot believe AMC will bolt, but I cannot believe KC won't do anything to prevent it. Gotta be something that can be done
Yes, incentives skewed towards new vs retention is a big problem. But even the "new job" incentives Kansas has bigger tax breaks. A particular advantage is Kansas can front the cash on Day 1 and then repay itself over time from the company's taxes. Missouri doesn't offer this option.KCPowercat wrote: Isn't the problem incentives on both sides that favor "new jobs" vs "retention of jobs"? Both ks and mo have much better incentives for new jobs. Just that kcmo has more jobs to poach.
What loyalty are you talking about. Employers don't have it with employees. Employees don't have it with employers. Governments don't have loyalty with businesses (via incentives to some and not others; and giving incentives to new developments that poach businesses from older developments).FangKC wrote: Yeah, I'm getting pissed about how little loyalty some companies have to Kansas City, and to some extent, Missouri.
Now this is an extreme example because most of the time, no or very little incentives are offered. This firm MOVED FROM LA to the DC area. You see, you won't see such aggressive incentives to lure a company from VA to MD or DC to VA or DC to MD It doesn't happen. I also don't see it happening in Baltimore and its suburbs. Actually, Downtown Baltimore seems to be the premier choice for Baltimore area companies, but if they do move to Townson or something, it's not because they were lured with tons of cash.In the end, Virginia, with its nearly $14 million incentive package, won, bringing 300 to 400 high-paying jobs to an office park near Falls Church.
So, to bring a new company headquarters all the way across the country and its 400 high paying jobs (200k plus average), VA hands out 12-14 million which dwarfs other recent incentive packages to bring in new companies.Virginia is expected to give Northrop $12 million to $14 million in grants and cash incentives, with the exact amount based on which location the company chooses, said Jay Langston, senior researcher manager at the Virginia Economic Development Partnership. That amount surpasses the $4.6 million given to Hilton Worldwide and $8.5 million given to Science Applications International in recent years.
Really? You don't say!She also questioned offering incentives to companies right across the state line in Missouri, such as the reported $46 million in tax credits offered to AMC Entertainment Inc. to move from downtown Kansas City to Johnson County.
"A lot of their employees are already here," Lynn said.
Big difference between aggressively going after companies within the same metro with an absurd amount of incentives vs a region collectively competing for a brand new HQ from the other side of the country.KCMax wrote: I'm not sure why you bring up the DC example because the DC area is one of the more attractive markets with some of the fastest growing suburbs and its proximity to the federal government. Of course it takes less in incentives - people want to be in that area. And it kinda undercuts your argument that this bi-state poaching is somehow unique to our area when suburban VA and MD are fairly aggressive in competing with DC for companies. So your post is a bit puzzling.
I do agree that I don't see the benefit in offering subsidies if you're going to give up the payroll tax. What exactly would bringing AMC bring in benefits to KS if many of the employees already live there? Added infrastructure costs, and I guess you can put on a Kansas Chamber of Commerce brochure that AMC is a Kansas company, but when you're cutting funding for schools, it seems to be a twisted sense of priorities.
The region did not "collectively" compete for a brand new HQ. Fairfax beat out Arlington, VA; Prince George, MD; and Washington, DC. IIRC, DC actually offered a better incentive package.GRID wrote: Big difference between aggressively going after companies within the same metro with an absurd amount of incentives vs a region collectively competing for a brand new HQ from the other side of the country.
Do I really have to hold your hand and lay this all out for you?
Good lord max, I do have to hold your hand.KCMax wrote: The region did not "collectively" compete for a brand new HQ. Fairfax beat out Arlington, VA; Prince George, MD; and Washington, DC. IIRC, DC actually offered a better incentive package.
So, you're okay with suburban sprawl and incentive competition, so long as suburbs don't offer as much as Kansas?
Yes, it is me that is coming off as a bias in this thread.GRID wrote:
Still, if you don't see the point of my post without the Kansas bias, than there is little I can do.