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.'"
Now, see, that's the bit I have trouble with - it's going to cost Santa Clara $3M?? The land/buildings/whatever wasn't being used anyway, right?? If NASA went out and acquired the land specifically to rent it to Google, then OK, I'd see their point. If NASA's owned the land for a long time, it's entirely up to them who uses it.
Even if Google was going to give up some other property in Santa Clara county to make this move, that other property would still exist and garner property taxes for the county.
WAh, wah, wah, bitch, whine, moan. We have a right to that money. It's ours, and Google's stealing it by using NASA property. Moan, bitch whine.
If they want/need more tax income, they can go and get Prop 13 repealled. Freezing a giant part of the states tax income, and then trying to increase services year after year is not a winning plan.
Apparently it's OK to give Walmart tax-free access to land to build ugly stores with low-paying jobs, but it's not OK to do this?
Our system is incredible. People can't afford to pay their bills and taxes, and cities need the tax revenue.
This will all reach critical mass within the next 50 years, and it will be ugly.
Ignore Alien Orders
Sales tax is usually state-wide. So all that added commercial activity in the area is going to California, not the local municipal governments.
Actually, post-prop 13, the state ends up with the property tax revenue. The state doles it back, less its 'cut' to the counties and cities, though some are "more equal than others" in what they get. What the counties and cities get is most of the sales tax. That's why you see cities doing everything humanly possible to get more retail businesses built: they get more sales tax revenue for every one of those.
Paying NASA is just paying NASA.
Paying NASA is paying the federal taxpayer. I don't know about you, but I pay lots of federal tax and anything that reduces federal deficits I'm in favor of.
The city is now going to have to deal with issues such as increased traffic, upgrading public utilities, etc., and they're not going to get the money to handle it. I'm not surprised that they are ticked off at this.
The city is going to get lots of new, very high-paying jobs. Those people will pay sales tax, buy homes and pay property tax, and in general add to the prosperity of the area. The city is getting a good deal, on balance. However, like many governmental entities in California, they've also bloated their payrolls and overpromised on their benefits, so they think it's up to taxpayers to bail them out. Rather than cut payroll or benefits to fit reality, they're looking at any way possible to shake more money out of the pockets of the people. That's why they're ticked that somebody might be able to escape their clutches.
Google is winning big, and at the expense of the local people.
Exactly the opposite.
"Do no evil" --- isn'that the motto?
Well, yeah. But in modern parlance, that pretty much means "Pretend to hate and be aw-shucks embarassed that you and your fellow employees are making a profit on all that hard work and investment." But leaving that aside, how is it "evil" for them to come in, spend a fortune on setting up facilities (including municipal-type expenses - RTFA), and stationing a pile of employees in a place that does indeed sound like it could use some invigorating? It can't possibly be a negative for the local economy and tax base, no matter how advantageous it is for Google to build this up on that federal land partnership.
Why does one class of people, a class that you correctly point out is less educated and less well-off, pay for municipal services, while the upper classes do not?
But the services they're using are the municipal-type services that will be provided by the federal management, and Google will be paying for those. In my neighborhood, just by-the-way, I pay a hugely disporportionate amount of money into the local tax base, relative to what I use. My "class" of people (dual income, middle-of-the-road IT-industry-grade income) pay the vast majority of the taxes, but the largest (by far) users of those resources are the poorer famlilies who choose to have lots of kids. There's nothing even close to equitable about that, but that's a separete discussion (well, sort of).
They way this works, or at least supposed to work, you see, is government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Except, when one person is taxed heavily for the out-of-balance benefit of other people, you get government of the people, by the people, taxing some people, for different people. If Google's expanded presence in the area is a net drain on the economy, you've got something to fuss about. But we all know that what they'll be doing there will be nothing but stimulus for the local economy and the tax base.
You're an ass because you argument essentially reduces to "poor people should be so lucky to have nice rich neighbors like that to buy the coffee they make." In your words, it will "raise the local IQ average by a couple of points."
Don't you get it? I want it for my own sake. I'm one of the lower-IQ people that would be glad to have more bright, innovative people creating, producing, and thinking in the community around me. Do you really think that everyone is the same as everyone else, or that we should all be in cookie-cutter jobs providing the same services back and forth in some sort of zero-sum-game paradise of mediocrity? I'm glad there are musicians better than me, writers better than me, physicists better than me, airline pilots better than me, Google software engineers better than me, and people who are willing to take a starter job making lattes, too. That doesn't mean I think there's some latte/Google caste system, other than those which people make for themselves.
"Poor" people will hopefully be sending their kids to school with the kids of a woman that spends her day thinking for a living at Google. That's where the cultural osmosis takes place, and it's a good thing.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.