queencitybuckeye;708051 wrote:There's no reason that states should not have to complete for employers. In fact, economic growth is a primary role of state government.

O-Trap;708098 wrote:I actually disagree with this. States could simply jack up obscene non-income-based taxes on everyone else in order to have more with which to bid.

queencitybuckeye;708123 wrote:States have to complete for "everyone else" as well. If you try to pay for a break for company X by screwing me, I have 49 (or 56) other states from which to choose.

O-Trap;708127 wrote:I'd just as soon keep government at all levels out of private industry as much as possible (not entirely, but only in such cases that are absolutely necessary).

O-Trap;708127 wrote:Ah, interesting.

Even still, some states, on population alone, would end up being the "New York Yankees" of this kind of thing.

I'd just as soon keep government at all levels out of private industry as much as possible (not entirely, but only in such cases that are absolutely necessary).

LJ;708140 wrote:It's strictly an opportunity cost thing. Give up $x amount of tax revenue for 3 years, or give up $x amount forever...

O-Trap;708148 wrote:Oh I understand that part of it.

I'm not saying keeping Bob Evan's in Ohio wasn't a good thing. I'm just not sure I'm okay with doing it by, essentially, buying them off or bribing them, which this does resemble, much as I don't like to admit.

LJ;708140 wrote:It's strictly an opportunity cost thing. Give up $x amount of tax revenue for 3 years, or give up $x amount forever...

LJ;708150 wrote:The state SHOULD make incentives for companies to stay and move here. I feel that is one of the most important jobs that a state gov't has.

O-Trap;708127 wrote:... I'd just as soon keep government at all levels out of private industry as much as possible (not entirely, but only in such cases that are absolutely necessary).

LJ;707504 wrote:Yeah, they weren't going to move for a better corporate tax rate, better weather, and a new building. Nah, that sounds REALLY stupid

:rolleyes:

Columbus offered millions of dollars in incentives to Bob Evans so the company would stay, including $19 million in abatements, infrastructure improvements and cash.

But New Albany trumped that with a deal that would save Bob Evans $9.8 million, a property-tax abatement of $8.29 million over 15 years, a $1 million interest-free loan and an $826,000 income-tax credit.

"We chose to work with them, but they chose to abandon the South Side, to move to the suburbs," said Mike Stevens, the city's deputy development director.

But Hardgrow is upset that one city incentive package totaling $14 million offered the company a new building at Polaris.

"To us, that's like a slap in the face," she said. "It's like the city saying, 'We know the South Side isn't good enough for you guys.' "

Bigdogg;708876 wrote:http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/12/bob-evans-move-upsets-south-side-neighbors.html?sid=101

Yeah, that was it LJ? You ever wrong?

The latest Ohio Poll finds 40 percent of Ohio adults approve of John Kasich’s performance as governor, 47 percent disapprove and 13 percent neither approve nor disapprove. Kasich’s approval rating is lower than the initial gubernatorial approval rating recorded by the Ohio Poll for former Governors Strickland (68%), Taft (49%) and Voinoich (61%). Kasich’s approval rating for handling the economy (38%) is similar to his overall approval rating.

O-Trap;712958 wrote:Not surprising. I have a feeling that if Strickland would have won this time around, you'd see the same scenario, where the voters show a desire for the road they didn't travel.

The grass is always greener ...

LJ;712966 wrote:Nah, Strickland wouldn't be going after the sacred gravy trains

LJ;712966 wrote:Nah, Strickland wouldn't be going after the sacred gravy trains

Ty Webb;712954 wrote:http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/03/brutal-numbers-for-kasich-sb-5.html

Major buyers remorse from the voters of Ohio

Among all registered voters if a rematch was held today,Strickland would crush Kasich 55%-40%

Among voters that voted last fall,Strickland would win 49%-46%

Same thing is happening in Wisconsin and Florida

fish82;712979 wrote:Your propensity to grab the "poll of the day" and hump the shit out of it is beyond goofy.

fish82;712979 wrote:So what? He has three years left in his term. Your propensity to grab the "poll of the day" and hump the shit out of it is beyond goofy.

I note that you once again stopped posting Bam's approval numbers a week or two ago. I wonder why? :rolleyes:

Ty Webb;712954 wrote:http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/03/brutal-numbers-for-kasich-sb-5.html

Major buyers remorse from the voters of Ohio

Among all registered voters if a rematch was held today,Strickland would crush Kasich 55%-40%

Among voters that voted last fall,Strickland would win 49%-46%

Same thing is happening in Wisconsin and Florida