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.
Police, I can understand, but Im not sure Id be willing to pay for "services" like fire and garbage ;)
From this morning's San Jose Mercury News (URL: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/12 798126.htm )
Is Google's NASA campus a search for a tax break?
By Jessica Portner and Julie Patel, Mercury News
Just how sweet of a deal will Google get by building a major research park on a so-called federal enclave at Moffett Field that sits just beyond the reach of local tax assessors?
Depends on whom you ask and how you slice it.
NASA/Ames Research Center's Michael Marlaire bristles at the suggestion that his agency's planned partnership with Google, unveiled last week, would provide a tax shelter for the Mountain View-based Internet giant.
Terms of the deal are in the works, but Marlaire said Friday that Google would help build the 1 million-square-foot project, upgrade infrastructure, pay fair-market rent and shell out about $4.5 million a year to NASA/Ames for services, such as fire, police, sewage and other utilities.
``I don't want people to think they are coming here for a sweetheart deal. That is not what is happening,'' said Marlaire, Ames' director of external relations. ``Google isn't going to save a dime for coming here.''
The company might pay less, however, if it builds services that other Ames tenants, such as universities and small tech start-ups, could use, he said.
Still, some local officials, such as Santa Clara County tax assessor Larry Stone, say such a setup would cost local taxing bodies like schools, nearby cities and the county up to $3 million in annual property tax revenue.
Google pays about $850,000 in annual property taxes on the 34-acre site it leases in Mountain View for its world headquarters, Stone said. The company would escape paying local property taxes by building its research center and up to 2,000 homes in NASA's research park, which sits on part of the former military base that local taxing bodies can't touch. State and local tax rules are invalid on land classified as a federal enclave.
Bustling neighborhood
NASA/Ames envisions a bustling 95-acre neighborhood to sprout up around the park -- complete with shops, cafes and parks -- where the chatter on the street is nanotechnology and supercomputers. Like a McDonald's and other shops already located on Moffett Field, those retailers also would probably be off-limits for local taxes, Stone said.
NASA has already prepared a 900-page environmental impact report that paves the way for the project. Mountain View officials will watch closely from the city right outside NASA/Ames' gates. But they won't have much say over the process, which the federal government alone controls and laid out in a 2002 study on the proposed mega-R&D campus.
Bayfront property
NASA's review looked at environmental impacts on air, land, water, traffic and storm water, as well as other issues. It calls for on-site housing and bike paths to reduce congestion and pollution, but environmentalists worry that NASA will overlook many of the ecological and traffic issues on the sensitive bayfront property.
``Nothing against Google, but this plan would have significant impacts,'' said Lenny Siegel, executive director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight.
Mike Braukus, a spokesman at NASA headquarters in Washington, said the Google project appears to be the biggest of its kind for NASA, whose leaders say they want to transform Ames into something akin to a Silicon Valley company. The two sides have set a February deadline to arrive at a final deal.
Google would join university research groups and small start-ups that also rent space from Ames. Most pay about $4.50 per square foot a year for police, fire and other services.
Randy Nickel, the founder of Nxar, a start-up software company that rents a tiny workspace of a few hundred square feet at Ames, said his company's one-year lease
First, there are all sorts of government facilities (or, "public land", per the article) in/on which private companies ply their trades and make money. Every company with contractors present on an Air Force base is using a footprint there to do their private-sector business. There are whole buildings in federal campus-type areas, or large swaths of office space essentially subletted to private companies so that those companies can do what it is the taxpayers are paying them to do for the agency that's hired them. This is hardly new.
Further, most towns with any sort of federal activity would be delighted to hear that a bunch of high-end nerds from Google were moving in. It's not like they (the Google people) are going to live on the public property. These people are going to be buying coffee at Starbucks, eating out at restaurants, buying their kids' school supplies, etc., and that's all economic activity for the local communities.
It's a shame that the locals have such a huge unfunded retirement liability (um... I suspect there's a little more to that story than gambling that someday Google would move in and pay a lot of property taxes, and darn, it didn't work out), but there's another way to look at this. Google may not even have lined this gig up if they'd have to had built on private land and passed all of that expense, through the contract, on to NASA as a higher cost. Even if the deal had still gone through, it just would have been a bigger tab for the feds (meaning all of the rest of us) or less for NASA to spend on other things. In the meantime, only the locals get the other local economic benefits of having those new G-men/women moving into the area.
Sorry, but I smell a grasping local government that has just won the demographic lottery of having this happen in their area at all, and want to grab some more cash out of the deal to make up for what sounds like retirement fund planning sins of the past. Personally, I'd welcome a larger Google Presence in my area - it would raise the local IQ average by a couple of points, and make the area that much more attractive to other tech ventures... no matter which square feet of what bit of (unused!) federal property is being used to house the activity.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
hey, i like the sound of this. if i could pay nasa for utilities for my apartment instead of local government.. i'd be all over it. plus, the added bonus of having testing or launches in my backyard... :)
-'fester
-'fester
OK, so Google isn't locating it new venture on public property, and the article seems to indicate that it wont be using any public services It is unclear (by the article) who will be providing actual sewage services, though it does state that Google will have to construct them. Has anyone in the county bothered to do a benefit and loss comparison with what remains? How many new employees will be purchasing fuel, lunches, snack food, stopping for groceries on their way home, paying sales taxes as they do? How many people will relocate to the area and build new homes, paying property taxes and school taxes? How many new jobs will be created in the service economy of the area to support these people working and moving to the area? Here in upstate NY it would be afairly safe bet that most any town/county would welcome an arrangement where a large company movs to the area, doesn't consume services and so doesn't pay for them, but adds significantly to the local tax base in terms of jobs and consumption. Think about it, If it is such a terrible deal for the area, then why would they even want the Ames research facility there inthe first place? Why would any town, county or state want any government installation located within their borders? Most places with a military base near them shudder at the thought of a base closing, and it's because such bases contribute greatly to the local economy without adding to the service load. Furthermore, most places meter such services as water with a built in assumption of "what goes in must come out" and bills the water and sewer together based upon that assumption. Somebody needs to get their facts together as to what new jobs will be created and do a side by side benefit and loss comparison before they start screaming about the lack of tax revenue. One million square feet of development could easily employ enough new people to more than make up for the property tax loss.
They want power, by having people and companies dependent on local infrastructure.
And they want money through taxes, which equates to power for them to implement whatever *they* want. The near-zero regard that politicians have for the wishes of the people who elected them is almost universal.
I hope Google tell them to take a running jump.
The issue of Google not contributing to the building of extra transport infrastructure for 4000 jobs is easily handled, and it's not just specific to Google. All large corporations should be expected to make good use of teleworking and office hot-desking wherever it is desired by the workforce and feasible in the business, as it certainly is in IT. In a networked age, a company's whole IT staff driving in at 9am and home at 5pm is just plain nuts.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
"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."
Is not a compelling argument. Especially from a municipality. I doubt the state of California could squeeze any taxes out of Google/Nasa over this deal.
This is how the system in the USA works. The idea is that local communities can't tax the Feds or impose regulations on them. Otherwise they clearly would, and it would lead to chaos. E.g. the City of Berkeley would tax the hell out of the Feds, until they agreed to make the whole country a nuclear free zone, or cut off all business with Myanmar (Burma). That's how things went after the Revolution and until the formation of the United States -- there was terrible fights like this between states and the feds.
So the feds have property that they control. Then they turn around and provide this to private companies (typically contractors). Theoretically, because the contractors get the services for free, the market price of the rent should be higher. E.g. suppose a contractor has a choice: fed property or a neighboring plot that is otherwise the same, but comes with taxes. The market price of the fed property will be higher by the cost of the crap that the company avoids.
Google theoretically shouldn't save any money by doing its stuff on govt property: the price should be higher than on state-controlled or country-controller property, all things being equal.
Onen neat place to see this is the NV/CA border on Lake Tahoe. The same pile on the NV side costs more, because taxes are lower.
So the "problem" is due to the law, not Google. Unless they get that property for below-market costs (perhaps due to corruption), there's nothing awful going on here. Perhaps you think we need to change our constitution to make it possible for states to tax the feds, but that's another issue, and it doens't involve Google.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
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.
The federal government, much less NASA, doesn't get local tax exemptions so that they can rent the land to corporations. And just because NASA is charging them "full price" rent, doesn't mean they will when some other corporation that makes the "right" campaign contributions will have to pay "full price".
This arrangement is not fair to the other corporations in the city, and it's not what federal tax exemptions were designed for.
They are paying the money for the services that tax money would go to, I say they shouldn't HAVE to pay taxes. We should learn from research facilities like CERN, building an environment like this IS the way to go, if anything the government should be PAYing Google to move their research facilities there.
Freedom is fragile and must be protected. To sacrifice it, even as a temporary measure, is to betray it.
When public entities whine that they don't have enough money to pay for everything they want to have, and they need more. Especially, when it's thosedamn capitalists who aren't paying enough. errrrgghh!
I don't have enough money for everything I would like, either. As a result, I match my spending with my real income. Perhaps the Santa Clara County official needs to learn the concept of Opportunity Cost before they whine about their productive citizens not paying enough!
Imagine such article published on Slashdot:
"Apparently having more jobs moving into the area isn't enough for Redmond. They want some revenue from Microsoft, 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: 'Microsoft 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.'"
Can you imagine that? Because I can't. Slashdot has become a Mouth of Google.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Are companies forced to pay up for building on government land through a deal with such an organization, or not?
I mean... This isn't (or rather shouldn't be IMHO) about whether they "want" or "need" Google's money or not.
The article makes it sound like there isn't something preventing Google from doing that, and in that case, stop bitching and try change the laws instead of Google.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Because people want stuff NOW and will happily vote for politicians who will promise it to them.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
The tax base in that area is so bad. Home prices are in such deep decline. A parking space goes for $2 million. Who will think of the politicians?
If google is *renting* the building, how would they be liable for any special taxes related to coming to the county?
I get that by moving to a federal building on federal land they don't get money from the federal government for property tax.
But think of the alternative. Google rents some space from "Joe's Management Company". There still is no additional revenue from taxes. I'm not a tax expert, and I can't even spell "CPA", but this article seems to have a flawed premises.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
This comment is completely ignorant of the realities of what is going on. The Moffet complex recently had most federal functions taken away which is why the land is being used now for other purposes. Google grew in the valley and would almost certainly put most of its expansion in the valley, so there is none of this luring business with tax incentives junk that usually goes on. Businesses themselves have been campaining for bigger freeways and more light rail such as recently installed in this location, so instead of making up junk about grasping local governments it would make more sense to try and deal with the reality of business and government working together to understand community needs and pay for them together. The idea behind the revitalization of Moffet was to bring in valued institutions that the public can get value from such as the new Carnegie Mellon campus which is a center for learning and research, not tax-free profits. This comment is based on a thorough misunderstanding of local history, politics, services, and commercial activity in this area.
Translation: Google is cool, so they should not have to pay taxes like others do.
I'm tempted to ask for a break too, but I'm not as cool as Google and I'm not really into freeloading either.
Right, so anyone else wondering if rent / land costs are one of the smallest parts of the google expense bill?
I always love the smell of greed in the morning!
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
Especially, when it's those damn capitalists who aren't paying enough. errrrgghh!
Really? Well then, let's see Google get into the business of building and maintaining roads, providing fire and public safety, and doing local health and zoning operatings.
Da Blog
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
...how about a Google section so only a few Google stories make it to the front page? Hardcore Google-watchers can go read it and the rest of us can be spared seeing so many uninteresting Google stories. I can't be the only one getting sick of seeing so many.
Moving onto "federal" land to dodge local responsibilities is as old as the hills. Or last year, in fact, if you consider the relocation of the George Lucas Dark Empire into the federally owned Presidio in San Francisco. By doing this, Lucas manages to dodge paying local, state and city payroll taxes. Meanwhile, it gets to rent out around 200,000 square feet of its Presidio space. If it gets a high market rate of $30 per square foot this will bring in maybe $6 million a year -- $200,000 more than the rent Lucas will pay for the entire 23-acre lot. And of course, it then gets to dodge local and state taxes on rent profits as well. Swete deal for everyone except the citgizens of San Francisco.
Da Blog
"Hey, whoah. You're creating a magnet to draw a ton more six-digit income workers and Google stock millionaires into our tax base. What's in it for us?"
We have $30 million in unfunded retirement liabilities. We need the money.
This is one of the whiniest, most pedantic statements I've heard coming from a government official in a long time. That's really something, considering all the things officials seem to have to whine about these days. I agree with whoda, bad municipal planning is hardly a justification for going after Google for new tax revenue. There may be other, more justifiably reasons for doing so, but IANAL.
Sure thing, when you are capable of partnering with NASA and funding and manging a 1 million square foot research facility, we'll give you a tax break too.
"I'm sure there are literally millions of dollars in computers being moved into that facility."
I'm not so sure.
Google's paradigm is centralized computing, probably not within this facility. At best, they'll lease some office equipment, desks, etc. Seems to me there isn't going to be anything to tax.
Google's value is not in its physical assets, but in its people. I don't see anything for the county to tax here.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
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
So let me see if I understand it - this is merely a more nakedly obvious example of the government which we empower to tax us, showing that its only concern is revenue.
Anyone see a conflict of interest there? Would you give your landlord the LEGAL power to not only set your rent, but compel you to pay it (and you have no real chance to evade it by moving elsewhere)?
Tangetially, this is the problem with an estate tax...personally, I have a serious issue with a government that directly PROFITS by the death of its citizens. Budget shortfall in WA? The gov't of the state could whack Bill Gates and watch the budget crisis disappear...
-Styopa
The conflict echos of many past economic conflicts: Company A (the City of Mountain View) is well seasoned, controls the market and has become fat, lazy and leech-like from the lack of competition. While they do many good things they are unwilling to fix the major flaws that are bleeding them dry like, for example, a vastly overstaffed police department unwilling to cut a single position. Company B (Google) is the new upstart, flexible and lean, that is creating wealth for themselves and those that support them. The City of Mountain View has seen quite a few local businesses created to support Google and Google employees that generate millions of dollars each year in tax revenue.
It's a bit like the City of Cambridge, MA vs. MIT and that other school. While they do pay into the local coffers what would be a somewhat appropriate tax for their real estate the City still wants more. But what would Cambridge be like without them? How many local businesses with their high paying research jobs would be there without the talent these schools recruit? While these schools generate less direct tax revenue from their properties then their commercial counterparts they do generate, IMO, much more overall indirect tax revenue. Will MIT every move off of Mass. Ave. because of high taxes: doubtful. Google, on the other hand, could easily leave Mountain View for greener, and cheaper, pastures.
Like it or not "free market" forces can not be denied. If Mountain View becomes too rich for Google they will move elsewhere like so many other businesses and Mountain View will be left as a rotting shell like so many other US cities that have lost their major private employer. Be it to another city, state or county they will move. It's happened millions of times in the US since the early 1970's.
Here's my suggestion for Google employees: take one weekend and everything you buy locally buy with $2 bills. For those outside the US the $2 bill, while rarely used, is legal tender. $2 bills stand out and the massive influx of them will get noticed. Each $2 bill used that weekend is an advertisement for Google's economic force in the community. Those $2 bills will spread to many, many people that think they have no connection to Google. I suspect the media would latch on to the story too.
Google brings in a ton of money to Mountain View and IMO their positive economic impact needs to be taken into consideration when judging what their fair tax responsibility should be. City officials in Mountain View need to take a moment to imagine their city without Google and where they'd be.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Sure thing, when you are capable of partnering with NASA and funding and manging a 1 million square foot research facility, we'll give you a tax break too.
Wrong on many counts: You could not, I and other Silicon Valley business coalitions would fight against you much more strongly than you expect, and I personally would never except tax breaks of any kind for any enterprise I am have any influence over.
You have a lot to learn about how commerce actually works. Freeloaders are not welcome at any level, not even the highest levels. A lot of work and tax dollars went into securing that land and providing public transit. Doing all that for freeloaders was never part of the plan.
Enter 'Santa Clara County' into Google. See the #1 result:
"THAT'S NOT OUR FUCKING PROBLEM!"
You must think in Russian.
And the obscene amount of taxes Americans have been paying for education has yielded excellent results. Right...... There is a solution for better education but saying more money is the easy solution without thinking about it properly.
"'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."
Translation : We fucked up, we're going to try to make someone else pay for our mistake.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
A property that was being used for Federal research is now going to be used for.... Federal research. I fail to see the change in the status quo here.... except that there's now going to be a multi-billion dollar company (paying rent) helping to run the place. Who knows what sorts of innovation will come out of there? If we get one really useful, groundbreaking thing, then the tax break is worth it.
...can a city complain about a corporation being exempt from taxes, and it's the city that's greedy. Seriously, if the rest of us have to suck it up an pay taxes, there's no reason whatsoever that a multi-billion dollar corporation can't do the same.
Local governments don't like it when eminent domain abuse isn't in their favor?
Just keep up your whining about nit picky little crap and that headline will be true one day. It's a lot easier to move a tech company than a company like Boeing, but they still managed to shift a lot of their work to other states.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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.
Based on track record, it's clear that they don't. The way public education has been going, America's future is very bleak.
Pull your head out of our posterior.
A lot of work and tax dollars went into securing that land and providing public transit. Doing all that for freeloaders was never part of the plan.
According to Nasa, they provide public transit on the property, police & fire, local construction. About the only thing they *don't* is consumer goods-- this means the Googleheads will be *shopping* at whatever local Santa Clara malls exist; and they'll be paying sales tax, too.
The only entity that spends money for local services on the property is NASA. That's federal money; when was the last time your local county property taxes went to pay for space research?
Oh; right, never.
Google's paying rent to NASA, most likely more than enough to satisfy any of costs incurred by Google's usage of the property. This is a win for Google. This is a win for NASA. This doesn't cost Santa Clara a dime, because NASA pays for all the local services.
Why the fuck should google pay for *any* of the local politics?
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Like this: http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-093005exi t_lat,0,1534949.story?coll=la-home-headlines/
From an an article [sfgate.com] at SFGate.com last Wednesday, "Google's deal with NASA Ames will be a long-term lease of at least 60 years that would allow the company's rent payments to be plowed back into the campus for improvements, real estate sources said."
It seems odd at least for a company whose motto is "do no evil" to negotiate a deal in which the rent paid on public property is turned around to their 100% benefit rather than being used for something like offsetting other tax payer funded costs at NASA Ames.
Perhaps their motto should be "do no evil that any of our competitors wouldn't do in the same situation."
According to a representative of the county, '...We have $30 million in unfunded retirement liabilities. We need the money.'
eebra82: So what if the public demand is of bigger interest?
By day, Eric Schmidt is a tax-n-spend, save-the-whales, let's-do-it-for-the-chil'run utopian kook:
By night, he's an evil, conniving, mercantilist schmuck who abuses every tax loophole he can get his grubby little paws on.PS: This clown damn near bankrupted Novell. Don't come crying to me when, five years from now, Google's getting trounced by Yahoo! and MSN.
Forget about Greg Perry's underfunded pension whining, that's a red herring. Though as someone who's lived in Mountain View for eight years I would say that our city council has done a pretty good, though far from perfect, job in the face of a terrible economy the last four years.
A big problem I have with this deal is that Google is not just building office space on federal land but also housing (up to 2,000 units) and retail space. Guess what? There won't be any taxes paid on the homes and stores either. Most Google employees are younger, many in the age range when having kids is common, and those children will be going to local schools even though this deal will avoid paying into the school district to fund the increased enrollment.
For those of you who said that hey, it's not like Google was paying local taxes now, I guess you forgot where the company's main office complex currently sits. That would be Mountain View and so, yes, they do pay local taxes because of it and that money would evaporate with this deal.
Even given these negatives I do believe that Google and NASA should make the deal; the underfunded pension liabilities are indeed irrelevant. However, if the company executives want to live up to "Do No Evil" then they should alter the terms to account for the cost the development will incur. Otherwise this will be just one more in the recent skein showing Google's corporate morality is now second banana to a misguided self-interest.
Because they don't own the land. Any property taxes due are payable by the owner, not the renter. You want to make an exception just for Google? Idiot.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
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
Practically everyone who responded to the parent post focussed on the 9-5 timekeeping or on the number of hours worked. That wasn't the point being made at all, but the fact that the majority of IT workers are expected (by a very large majority of companies) to commute in to work, and that puts load on the transport infrastructure.
The rush hours around 9am and 5pm aren't the only points of the day that matter. Driving at any time of the day has a wear and tear effect on the tarmac for example.
If you want to keep public infrastructure costs low (and you should want that if you're a big employer but don't intend to contribute pro rata to those costs), then telecommuting + occasional hotdesking ought to be offered to all employees who want it, and indeed strongly encouraged as the standard way of working in IT.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Da Blog
rampant local governmental stupidity
Find me a borough where everyone is happy with all of the decisions and activities of their local government, and I will show you Elysium.
If you are going to live in a city with many different cultures, ethnicities, and lifestyles, then you should expect a city government that reflects that diversity. And of course, many of the things they do will strike you as bizarre, ugly, or stupid. Just as, presumably, many things you do appear to others.
If you want a homogeneous city government, where decisions are transparent and unitary and meet with almost complete consensus, then why not try living in Colorado Springs, or Salt Lake City, or Salem, MA, circa 1692?
Da Blog
It does not matter. NASA shut them up by saying one little word... they are RENTING. therefore property tax can not be collected from anyone but the land owner.(unless there are some really absurd laws there that allow land to be double taxed.)
It's a small government whining because they are not getting their cut of the pie. Boo frigging hoo.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
There is no such thing as a "fair share" to be paid.
One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
This house isn't even the cheapest I found that meets/exceeds the spec, at $85k. However, I took something from near the middle of the list to avoid trotting out this 5 bedroom house selling for $35k and claiming it was representitive.
Pull your head out of our posterior.
Speak for yourself, asshat.
this means the Googleheads will be *shopping* at whatever local Santa Clara malls exist; and they'll be paying sales tax, too
So it's the responsibility of the employees (and the other country residents) to make up for Google not paying taxes? That's crap.
This is a win for Google. This is a win for NASA. This doesn't cost Santa Clara a dime, because NASA pays for all the local services.
And who do you think pays for NASA, dumbass?
Why the fuck should google pay for *any* of the local politics?
Because the rest of us fucking have to, that's why.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Since you don't seem to get the joke and the other replies haven't seen fit to explain it to you so that you are less likely to make similar mistakes again, I will.
The services as listed are garbage and fire, not garbage removal and fire fighting. So taking them literally results in the funny concusion that they are going to send the renters garbage and set things in the rental on fire.
Historically big players in the Valley go for open spaces, use them for a while, then move on. That is how the bay side parkland in Mountain View was mostly converted to now abandoned offices. Recently locals have been trying to encourage more sustainable development patterns. Companies are encouraged to build taller infill development instead of competing over the last few open spaces like those found along the bay, on the protected hillsides, and in nearby Coyote Valley. Adobe, for example, has a compact campus in a downtown area. Of course, even with PDF and all that it we are supposed to accept that Adobe does not serve the public at all while Google does. So Google will be making products for the marketplace by making use of subsidy while Adobe has to slog along paying taxes like other companies because they did things right and followed local community guidelines for development. And having Adobe and other companies that are expanding as recommended foot the bill for companies still addicted to abandoning one sprawling campus in order to build another makes sense. The only good to come of this is that once Cisco or some other company moves into Coyote Valley the system of unfair givaways will be forced to an end because all the big open spaces are gone. There is only so much land in the valley, so infill development is the future. Maybe someone will be able to come up with a robust business model that can handle expansion without a lot of taxpayer kickbacks. Too bad that won't be Google.
It is amazing how far this nation has fallen after a decade of rule by cronies. In the past very profitable institutions were expected to pay their fare share, but now we argue that big profits lead naturally to big tax breaks. Fortunately small companies are such a large and productive part of the marketplace that they can probably support this kind of aggressive wealth redistribution scheme.
No, what you're spouting is crap. "Make up for?" What's to "make up for?" It's completely between NASA and Goodle. Say, how about if Google changes their minds due to the bad attitude of Santa Clara County and calls it off? What's to make up for then? How about NASA rents space to Google at another federal facility in another State? What's to make up for, then? And what would Santa Clara County have to say about that? Or how about if Google gets tired of fuckwits like you and just shuts down? Santa Clara County has no claim on Google just as it has no claim on me, and what goes on on federal property is just none of Santa Clara County's business.
Look at the bright side: there's always seppuku.
When the Feds moved their own operations out of the facility the community had to deal with it. Because it is a heavily polluted superfund site the obvious thing would be to use part of the land for landfill and the rest for recreation such as golf, tennis, trails, and such like nearby bay side locations. Because the locals are committed to research they have been getting the contamination dealt with and putting in the work to extend light rail to the site. This has meant a huge committment by the community, a lot of political haggling, and a big investment in light rail, new roads, and lots of other stuff just to keep this facility open. Had the people who made this possible realized what was going to happen they probably would have just gone for the landfill and park combo and let researches choose from the many available post boom locations.
Regarding the tax structure, people really need to take another look at what is going on here. The comparisons to Boston are way off because it turns out Moffet Field is not in Massachusetts, but is actually in California instead. That is a whole different bay, and a whole different tax mess. Because the state of California has been in severe financial dire straights for a long time yet refuses to tax the living hell out of its citizens the way Massachusetts does a huge percentage of all local property taxes collected goes directly to the state just to pay the interest on the ever growing debt. Of course most researchers around here will tell you that is no problem because the state cannot go bankrupt which in turn shows how useless most researchers are when confronted with the kind of real problems that governments have to at least try to solve. Do the math on the local tax reveue from real estate prices going up. It is next to nothing, and far less than the demands on local infrastructure created by people moving in to the area.
The issue with Federal land is not like any other rent situation, either. If you rent a normal apartment, your rent is set so that a fraction of the rent you pay goes to pay the taxes on the property through the owners and managers. On federal property the rent goes to set up an entire alternative system of services. None of that money goes to localities or the state unless they get a cut of the sewer outflow or something. Yum!
Additionally it is worth taking a look at the area. Between the current Google location and Moffet there are literally dozens of abandoned corporate campuses. One cluster of buildings completed at the end of the dot com boom has never had any tennnants ever and so has never been fitted out, and this is adjacent to the existing Google campus. There are many options for taking over existing sites and rebuilding them to suit, but what big corporations want is empty land in a tax free location. They cannot be blamed, really, but the idea of spending all the money and effort to keep Moffet open for research was oriented toward actual research, not Google's product development.
This is just pure corporate greed. Google is not a research institution, and they are not more deserving of tax breaks than other big players like Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Cisco, or even the many smaller players. They have plenty of reasonably priced options, and the tax revenue coming from this will mostly go to the state anyway. The sad thing is how this will damage real development over time. Why allow a Federal facility in your area when you know it will be gutted in the future for corporate tax breaks?
The feds could Eminent Domain the mayor, police chief, city council etc's house for Google executives to live in.
Since they would be paying higher income taxes, and if would keep Google from relocating to Canada.
And who do you think pays for NASA, dumbass?
I sure as *hell* know that it doesn't come from the Santa Clara County Property taxes. Those go towards schools, roads, and other such municipal tasks FOR local residents. That's why the LOCALS pay them, not out-of-state individuals, or federals.
So it's the responsibility of the employees (and the other country residents) to make up for Google not paying taxes? That's crap.
You don't get it, do you. Ask yourself *why* you pay local taxes:
For Police. For Fire Protection. For road construction. For schools. NASA has already PAID for these things in their territory. Although the NASA facility lies within Santa Clara County, it doesn't actually use any county facilities-- it relies upon its own resources. Why should they have to pay twice? Why should Google have to pay twice; its already paying NASA, who then uses a portion of that rent to cover costs incurred by Google.
How, exactly, is Google costing Santa Clara County *ANYTHING*?
Why the fuck should google pay for *any* of the local politics?
Because the rest of us fucking have to, that's why.
Think with your head, not your socialist e-peen. I don't pay Santa Clara County taxes, even though I may occasionally use a Santa Clara County service. See, I don't *live* in that county, even though I may occasionally visit it. I get use of the Police, and Fire Department, merely by passing through. Should I attach a property tithe to my local tax bill as well, and earmark that for everywhere in the U.S. I might visit?
NASA doesn't HAVE to pay taxes. Why? Because they don't use any county services. They are self-contained. Why should Google bear the burden of NASA's costs AND the counties?
Oh, because the county's taxes are greater than NASA's costs? Could that be because the county squanders its money in efficency, useless projects?
Go cry somewhere else. Like any other financial transaction, it doesn't make any sense to toll some organization for something you aren't getting. Google doesn't get shit from the county if it locates its facility within a NASA facility. It's retarded to believe that they should owe the county anything.
As far as NASA/Google are concerned, the county is a separate entity, and they do not interact with them
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
So, in other words, he's a typical liberal, right?
Right:
Cap gains [20%] are for the beautiful people; taxes [50%+] are for the serfs.Google will have employees with kids who'll be in public school
Which will be paid for by their parents property taxes wherever they live and has nothing to do with the office real estate Google uses.
employees who'll use the police and fire protection
Which will be paid for by their property taxes, again. And when they are at work, this will be provided by NASA and passed through as a cost to Google as was clearly stated in one of the stories above. They aren't free riding.
water and sewer
Again, see above. Paid for by Google to NASA. How NASA/Federal government compensates the locality if it connects to their sewer/water services is another issue, but presumably either (A) they don't connect to the local services or (B) they compensate the locality fairly for any use they make already and thus this is a non-issue.
local roads
This is the only point with some legitimacy - the additional traffic and use of local roads nearby will present some extra cost to the locality. Presumably they should ask NASA/Google for compensation and force NASA/Google to pay for road expansions and repairs to local access roads that will be more heavily trafficed due to the new office park.
But in general, it just seems like Google will be pumping money into the local economy which will generate more property taxes and wealth for the city.
The point the City is making is that, while Google will pay market value rent for their space and utilities, there are going to be unfunded projects.
The article lacked detail, but I didn't see anything about building a new school to support the 2000 new houses. Guess who is going to pay for and run that school? Google? NASA?
The second problem is that, in a normal lease, Google would pay real estate taxes that are passed on by the Landlord. The article mentions a $850,000 per year figure, which is probably low because the property hasn't sold recently to be reappraised.
Leasing on the Fed's land is going to eliminate that expense, and I doubt that the Feds increased the rent because they were so giddy to get Google to bail them out of a bunch of unproductive land the local bureaucrats would eventually start asking to use.
Why cut IT when your office space costs $3/sf? gibso
No, my argument was that if they are renting space from a federal agency that is providing the equivalent of municipal services, then they are free to contract with said agency to provide said services instead of paying taxes to the city for services they aren't using.
And that the city needs to go to said federal agency, as the property owner, and negotiate fair payment for increased road traffic and any other real costs incurred.
Clearly they shouldn't be able to expect to use municipal services if the city/county isn't getting paid any taxes, that would be a rather inane argument. But the points the grandparent poster made were mostly already addressed in the article above or were effectively irrelevant (like schooling, which as I said before is paid for by residential property taxes anyway, since children go to school where their families live rather than where their parents work).
I would personally like to invite Google to expand upon their imminent presence in Oregon where we tend not to charge major corporations (Intel) squat for property taxes.
The only problem with that is that Oregon is already pretty tech heavy and we hurt the most last time the bubble burst.
Your powers of observation and deduction are anemic. I'm guessing that you are a 20-year-old college student who hasn't been out in life yet to learn how things work.
Aside: The Shift key can be your friend.
Look at the bright side: there's always seppuku.
The amount of obligation that the public is under for the various Government Employee Retirement programs is going to come to light and it won't be a pleasant story. Already it was Virginia or West Virginia where there was a shortfall because of mismangement and the public was held accountable for it by the courts.
e NodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=55769
People complain about CEOs and their golden parachutes have never looked towards the public workers and realized just how golden those retirements really are. People think Social Security and Medicare funding are the big problem only do so because this is the big "dirty" secret that hasn't been publically harped on.
Here is a good story about just how big the numbers are, and you will be liable for it.
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?sit
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
"It does not matter. NASA shut them up by saying one little word... they are RENTING. therefore property tax can not be collected from anyone but the land owner.(unless there are some really absurd laws there that allow land to be double taxed.) "
Hello? Property taxes get passed on to the tenant in the form of higher rents.
Second, a ton of municipalities charge Commercial Rent Tax -- which, it turns out, are a really easy way to make property double-taxed.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
There wouldn't be a tax income anyway. Just look at the competitions communities get into trying to entice a corporation to build a new facility. When's the last time you heard of a company building a new facility someplace without getting various tax breaks?
If Santa Clara County isn't interested in having Google co-located with NASA, I'm sure other communities with NASA locations would be delighted to have Google as a member of the community. Here for instance.
[Insert pithy quote here]
prove me wrong by explaining the subtle, hidden meaning to your original statement, because to a philistine such as myself
I'd love to, but I fear your incipient philistinism would prevent you from appreciating its beauty.
Da Blog