Slashdot Mirror
Google-NASA Partnership Backlash
Morgalyn writes "Apparently having more jobs moving into the area isn't enough for Santa Clara County. They want some revenue from Google, and are peeved that they are avoiding paying property taxes by building on government land. According to a representative of the county, 'If public land is being used for private purposes, the tenants should be paying local property taxes... We have $30 million in unfunded retirement liabilities. We need the money.' They aren't getting the land for free according to NASA: 'Google will not save any money by building on our property. They have to pay full ground rent based on fair market value and all the municipal-like services we provide like police, fire and garbage.'"
I suppose if they find government land tax too much of a burden they could always try here: http://www.lunarintl.com/
Argh.
That NASA garbage service must be pretty high tech.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
"We have $30 million in unfunded retirement liabilities. We need the money."
So when local government/state government fail to meet the obligation to its citizens, wait until Google land on your town and milk it for what it's worth?
Oh, I can see it now... "Eric Schmidt for Mayor!"
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
ok.. you work in IT department, when is the last time you drove in at 9 AM and drove home at 5 PM? I work in IT department and I only heard of such myth by my parents back in 1960's.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Yeah cause we all know the local taxes that go to pay for childrens education have nothing to do with Americas future.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
Whether Santa Clara needs the money, or whether they "fucked up" handling money in the past, are both irrelevant.
The issue is whether a governmental entity can lease out its property for a profit-making purpose and have that property remain untaxed. If you think the answer to this is an unqualified "yes", then you would not be opposed to any of California's state parks being leased out to car dealers or trailer park owners.
The issue is whether the activities of Google are consistent with the mission of the entity providing the land.
(like $2m USD for a nice three bedroom house that would cost ~$400k in a typical "farm belt" community of the US).
Umm, try like maybe $220K.
resigned
There's a big NASA chunk of land in Houston. And I am sure local government would not object of a bunch of people with BIG income to move into the area. After all, if pension fund is so screwed up, probably other locally provided services too (and overpriced)
Hyperom.com