Slashdot Mirror


"Bridge To Microsoft" Gets Federal Stimulus Funds

theodp writes "Among the first to benefit from the investment in roads and bridges from Obama's stimulus plan is Microsoft, which has $20B in the bank. Local planners have allotted $11M to help pay for a highway overpass to connect one part of Microsoft's wooded campus with another. Microsoft will contribute almost half of the $36.5M cost; other federal and local money will pay the rest. 'Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates could finance this out of pocket change,' griped Steve Ellis of the Taxpayers for Common Sense. 'Subsidizing an overpass to one of the richest companies in the country certainly isn't going to be the best use of our precious dollars.' Ellis called the project 'a bridge to Microsoft,' alluding to Alaska's infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere.'" A White House spokesman said this bridge project is still under review.

31 of 343 comments (clear)

  1. so? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless it is a toll road which Microsoft owns completely, there is nothing wrong with using public money to build the road.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:so? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, if Washington is anything like my states, there are plenty of roads that need repairs and bridges that need to be built before a bridge that only helps one company. Essentially all this does is go from one end of MS's campus to the other. So who uses this? MS and their employees. When there are crumbling bridges and potholes in roads that many, many, more people travel on, it doesn't make any sense to build a road that is only to be used by one company.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:so? by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The City of Redmond thinks the project has value as well for traffic in other parts of the city. MS is picking up half the cost because they're the main beneficiary.

      I'm the first one to scalp MS or jump on wasteful spending, but this doesn't seem that bad. It'll provide a lot of construction jobs, ease traffic on other roads in Redmond. I supposed you could argue there are other bridge and road projects in Washington that need the money worse. But as long as it's a public roadway and not some kind of gated private road...to me this doesn't seem to be in the same class as the Bridge to Nowhere.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    3. Re:so? by lymond01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please do educate me as to how this is an essential service that benefits everyone that we would not be able to provide for ourselves.

      From the article:

      "The city of Redmond says the overpass will relieve congestion on other streets and support a big employer in the region, though one cutting jobs lately. Microsoft said in January that itâ(TM)s eliminating as many as 5,000 jobs, including some from its Seattle-area workforce of 41,480."

      Microsoft could pay out of pocket but the new road is a public road and they shouldn't have to. The fact they're offering to pay any at all is a boon. As the article stats, MS is a huge employer in the area and creating better traffic throughput (ahem...enlarging bandwidth) is good not just for them but for the people using the road (employees of MS mostly but still "the public").

    4. Re:so? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Connecting two parts of the company campus? The company should pay for it.

      If I understood correctly, it connects two parts of the city. It so happens that each has one part of MS campus in it, so MS will benefit greatly, but they're not the only one to do so (and of course, as TFA says, they do pay for it, just not for all of it).

    5. Re:so? by dwhitaker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that most people would agree with you right now considering the economy. The only reason this is news-worthy at all is that Microsoft is the primary beneficiary and the mention of their name alone seems to make everything controversial.

    6. Re:so? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Connecting two parts of the company campus? The company should pay for it.

      That depends, Microsoft is a huge company, and they have a massive number of workers that need to get from 'point A' to point 'B', which requires crossing public land. They also pay a massive amount of taxes.

      And the bridge would be a great convenience to a lot of Microsoft workers, who so happen to be American citizens, as well.

      When they build this bridge, it could effect traffic on other city roads. For example, it could relieve traffic that improves quality of life for individuals and businesses not working for Microsoft.

      It could save money on further road expansions and traffic controls that might otherwise need to be added to other roads that are congested due to increasing traffic between parts of their campus, as Microsoft expands.

      Microsoft clearly thinks it will benefit them directly or indirectly, I mean, it's clear because they're paying half of it, which also makes it a loss less expensive than certain alternatives.

      It's definitely not clean-cut that Microsoft is the only beneficiary here, such that they should pay for it.

      For one thing, the bridge will be public property, and it will cross public property, or require the local government to buy-out private property owners, so it makes sense the government will pay for what they own.

      Only the government has eminent domain privileges, so only the government can really be assured of being able to even complete the necessary pre-requisites for this project.

      Microsoft may have a lot of cash, but they aren't experts in the road construction and maintenance business, and the liability risks of owning a road are massive, and not something they should have to take on.

      Anymore than Microsoft should have to PAY for the right to have police officers come to investigate a crime, or to have to build and pay for their own police force.

      Simply put.. roads are a government service, just like police, fire, emergency response units, military, etc.

    7. Re:so? by curunir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why are people all over the country paying for something that only people in Redmond are benefiting from?

      Because people all over the country pay for a lot of things for people in specific areas of the country. Washinton is a donor state receiving $0.88 for each dollar its citizens paid in Federal income tax. And given that Microsoft has its headquarters in Redmond, the city and the county are almost assuredly subsidizing at an even higher rate.

      If you want to jump on why the rest of us are paying for things in specific areas of the country, you'll want to focus on New Mexico ($2), Alaska ($1.87), West Virginia ($1.83), Mississippi ($1.77), North Dakota ($1.73), Alabama ($1.71), Virginia ($1.66), Montana ($1.58) and South Dakota ($1.49).

      And to answer your question from a more philosophical point of view, we all pay for roads to be built all over the country so that we have the freedom to know that we can drive wherever we want to. As a resident of California (a donor state to the tune of $0.79), I could be irked by how much New Mexico gets. But I choose to remember the vacations I've taken to New Mexico and how roads paid for with federal monies enabled me to take those vacations.

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
    8. Re:so? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      How myopic. As someone who once worked at MS (and now at a Linux company, so sad that I feel I need to qualify that) - Redmond is a traffic nightmare, due to the sheer volume of intercampus transport for Microsoft (and other companies in the area, but MS is certainly the biggest).

      Would an overpass benefit MS? Absolutely. Would it take SEVERAL THOUSAND VEHICLES A DAY off of Redmond's roads, much to the benefit of Redmond locals and other Washington residents? Absolutely.

      This whole "Why MS? They've got money!" thing stinks more of people here's biases than an actual rational review of the situation. You want perspective? The city of Redmond is 47,000 people. There are 40,000 employees of Microsoft in Redmond every day. Not accounting for the overlap between the two, that means Redmond's population is DOUBLED during the day due to Microsoft alone, let alone Nintendo, Safeco Insurance, etc, etc, etc. See why reducing traffic on the area's arterial roads is a benefit for the entire community, not just MS?

    9. Re:so? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Microsoft actually does extremely well with their shuttling situation. For large, common routes, they use large buses. For smaller routes they use "commuter" buses, running on a regular schedule.

      For on-demand shuttle usage, you go to any building reception, request a shuttle. They have an integrated dispatch network which will aggregate trips, so along comes a Prius (they only use the Prius), picks you up, makes as many pickups as possible in a beeline between you and your destination, attempting to fill the car where possible, and then drops you off in the optimal fashion. In this sense, it's pretty hard to fault Microsoft (who also offer all employees free public transport passes, paid for by the company).

    10. Re:so? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only fair way to distribute money taken at gunpoint, ie. taxes, is to not take the money away in the first place.

      But since America loaned too much money in the recent past, you're government is solving that for you by forcing you (promising to send your future taxes to someone in trade for money now) to take out much more loans.

      Yes. You read that right. The government is solving the problem of Americans (and others) loaning to much by making you loan more.

      This is, according to a certain democrat "redivision of wealth" (from you to microsoft in this case). But don't worry, many large corporations, huge banks and rich senators are entitled to your money according to this democrat.

    11. Re:so? by aevans · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft and it's employees *are* the community. Believe it or not, real live people (often citizens) work at corporations. Microsoft employees paid the taxes that will fund the overpass. (Actually, I think the supposed overpass has already existed for about 10 years.) And don't worry about the other projects in the state of Washington that *need* it more. They wouldn't get funded anyway no matter what. They haven't yet, and there's been plenty of money in the state budget for a long time now.

    12. Re:so? by Mia'cova · · Score: 5, Informative

      The headlines are deliberately confusing what happened here. MS offered to pay 70% up front when this was being planned in 2006. The rest was covered by the city of redmond, no federal funds. Redmond city planners have applied for some federal money to cover the increased price of more recent estimates for this project. It also hasn't yet been approved afaik. If microsoft was petitioning for federal money in place of what they've offered, that would be a completely different story.

    13. Re:so? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>>Microsoft probably brings in a teeny tiny bit of revenue for that community

      The amount of money MS gives the community is far less than 11 million dollars. This is the equivalent of spending ten dollars to get a 1 dollar coupon mailed to yourself. The money spent exceeds the money earned. It's foolish.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    14. Re:so? by pintpusher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can't wait to get my street paved... it's asphalt on dirt and has more cracks and potholes than actual road surface left. They've been patching it with cold patch for about 5 years now. At one point, I would see several cars a night with flats from one particularly nasty pothole... typically it was a bent rim for added excitement. We're slated for curb-to-curb rebuild this summer. Hopefully they'll fish all the VW Beetles out of the potholes before they start digging.

      And before you scream OT... I'm in WA ;-P

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
    15. Re:so? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's even worse. Microsoft has a shell organization in Nevada. So all of Microsoft's products are developed and created in Seattle and then they 'sell' Windows through Nevada so that they don't have to pay Washington State for any of their income tax.

      Meanwhile we have a bridge (520) which is unable to keep up with Microsoft commuters every morning that needs a multi billion dollar investment to reduce traffic.

      All in all I would say Microsoft is a net force of good in the local economy and they probably give more than they take, but it would certainly be a little less repulsive if Microsoft actually had to pay a little of their way like the rest of us. Once again: if you're rich you get a free pass while the small businesses have to pick up the slack.

      On the other hand. If the money is being passed out evenly across the country. And this community thinks this is what is best for their community then by all means go for it. Microsoft Employees probably do pay their fair share in taxes since most make above the median income and probably are in a higher tax bracket. If your entire town is based around a Microsoft Economy, it would be silly to repair the bridge to home depot.

  2. Waste by Anenome · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Public works projects as a way of recovering from a recession has never worked. It didn't work for the Japanese in the 90's, they spent 10 years building roads and bridges and wondering why nothing was happening. It didn't work for us in the 30's. And it will never work.

    We need to stop listening to Keynesian and socialist economists who don't have the first clue what they're talking about and are trying to give solutions based on theory instead of what's been shown to work.

    You want to turn this economy around? Cut taxes to 20%, max. Reduce regulations on small businesses \ cut the red tape.

    The government cannot create jobs except government jobs, and government jobs do not build an economy. All government can do is get out of the way, and keep the playing field fair for the players.

    --
    "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
    1. Re:Waste by garett_spencley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the term "Keynesian economics" is being used so much, we might as well inform those who have no idea what you and I and the rest of us free-market people are talking about.

      John Maynard Keynes was a British economist in the early 1900's. He wrote a book called "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" which basically outlined various interventionist policies that the government could employ and what short-term effects they would have on the economy. It was very highly refuted but it gave the government a bunch of easy answers and policies that would ultimately expand government control, yet would be easy to sell to the public. Keynes' work is highly taught by government-subsidized Universities all over the world. Almost anyone taking economics at a University level will be taught "Keynesian Economics".

      Anyone who wants to hear both sides of the argument should pick up a copy of General Theory as well as Henry Hazzlitt's "Failure of the New Economics" which is one of the best refutations of Keynes' principles.

    2. Re:Waste by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fuck the Austrian school! Why is it ALWAYS the Austrians with the libertarians?

      At least cite Milton Friedman for a good critique of excessive government spending. He at least believed in a modern monetary policy, and wasn't advocating the goddamn gold standard. Can you even come up with a less realistic metric for a world economy than gold?

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:Waste by oneirophrenos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I live in Finland, and I generally don't have a beef with the gov't taking a substantial proportion of my income. Sure, part of it goes to things I think we could live without (new helicopters for the military, construction of music halls, etc). However, knowing that my taxes are used to support things such as basic infrastructure, the social security system and universal healthcare, makes me happy to be able to pay them. Because who knows, maybe someday I'll find myself unemployed, without an income, and relying on that safety net I've helped uphold.

    4. Re:Waste by garett_spencley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure I can come up with something way worse than gold: paper. The gold standard was considered unstable, and we did have a panic of 1907 that got the public behind paper money, however, comparing the stability of gold to paper is a joke. Paper money has been highly unstable and since it's introduction there has been nothing but inflation.

      Money needs to be an economic good in order to be used as money. In other words, it has to have value as used as something *other* than money. Because it is a medium of indirect exchange. In order really understand it's significance it helps to imagine a world with no concept of "money".

      Let's say that you're a dairy farmer. You can't stockpile milk indefinitely, and you can't sell enough milk in one day to pay for everything that you need. You need something that you can exchange your milk for that will be small, convenient, easy to save and extremely easy to trade later on. That's how money evolved. People have used rice, salt, pepper, gold, silver etc. Now we're using paper and the only reason it has any value what-so-ever is because the government forces us to use it. Yet every single time the government prints a new dollar it's value diminishes because there is more of it. Eventually the currency becomes worthless. In fact, it's not even proper to call fiat currency money. Originally it was a claim that be redeemed for money, until the government cut that off and forced everyone to trade worthless pieces of paper called banknotes. Why would they do that ? Because having a real asset backing the currency prevents them from running the presses excessively and limits their control and ability to expand their own projects. Only when they run the presses eventually the currency becomes worthless.

      The US dollar is worth about 3 or 4 cents compared to what it was in 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created. Giving a central authority, even if it's the government, complete control over the creation of money always results in runaway inflation. Every single country in world history that has tried paper money has run it into the ground. Every single one.

      I agree with a lot of Friedman's views but that one issue I STRONGLY disagree with him on. We don't have to use gold, although what I would like to see at the very least is the abolition of laws that prevent people from using gold if they so wish. Government should not be dictating the terms of contracts. I've heard some arguments in favour of legal tender laws (the courts will need to decide what to to be used in civil cases etc. legal tender simplifies that), but Canada doesn't have any law determining what people can use in contracts. No one is forced to trade the Canadian dollar in Canada, even stores don't have to accept the Canadian dollar if they don't want to. People should be able to trade with whatever they want, and legal tender must be backed by *something*.

    5. Re:Waste by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Public works projects as a way of recovering from a recession has never worked.

      Public works by themselves can't fix a broken economy, but they can be a useful part of a solution if done right.

      It didn't work for the Japanese in the 90's, they spent 10 years building roads and bridges and wondering why nothing was happening. It didn't work for us in the 30's. And it will never work.

      I gave ten bucks to a homeless guy and he was begging again later that day. Obviously giving money to the poor doesn't help them significantly. See the logical fallacy? An example does not make something a truism.

      We need to stop listening to Keynesian and socialist economists who don't have the first clue what they're talking about and are trying to give solutions based on theory instead of what's been shown to work.

      Yeah, if only there were countries with higher standards of living an more stable economies and higher median wealth than the US. We could do what they do. Oh, wait there are such countries and they almost all implement socialist programs you are claiming don't work.

      You want to turn this economy around? Cut taxes to 20%, max.

      Tax cuts haven't worked in practice and credible economist will tell you there isn't even a viable theory as to how that would work. Trickle down economics has failed. The biggest proponents among economist, even die hards like Greenspan, have abandoned it. The wealth has consolidated at the top and it isn't trickling back down. The only people still advocating that nonsense are paid publications trying to provide PR materials for policies no reputable economist will touch.

      educe regulations on small businesses \ cut the red tape.

      Yeah, reducing regulations has helped a lot too. It results in businesses that pass on a lot of the costs of their doing business to the rest of society.

      The government cannot create jobs except government jobs, and government jobs do not build an economy.

      Our tax dollars funded the research and equipment that was the internet. Our tax dollars funded the universities who expanded it and built the software to make it useful. It has created millions of jobs that are not government jobs and makes up a huge part of the world economy. Government spending can and does create more jobs and bring more growth to the economy than the same money spent by the private sector. It doesn't always. The spending has to be carefully picked for that purpose, but it certainly can and has done so in the past.

      All government can do is get out of the way, and keep the playing field fair for the players.

      That's the problem. The playing field is not fair. We'd like to think our economy is a meritocracy, but it isn't. Wealth is mostly transferred by inheritance and with our current tax policies pretty much every economic model predicts wealth will continue to consolidate into fewer hands, the middle class will shrink, and the lower class will grow. Reducing taxes across the board accelerates this process. The only thing that will change it is a complete wealth redistribution ala revolution, or increasing the progressiveness of taxes to take some of that money back from the high end, enough to at least balance out wealth condensation. Then, that money needs to be put back into the economy on the low end, raising the overall wealth of the poor. One way that has worked in many other countries is socialized medicine, where the consolidated nature usually leads to greater efficiency overall.

      I can go on and go into detail, but I think a lot of people here don't have much of a grasp on economics. Our economic crisis s not that we don't have enough money. The problem is the money is too inequitably distributed (just like during the great depression) and this leads to a volatile stock market and overall loss of wealth as it is lost dur

  3. Are you insane?! by denzacar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's Micro$oft!!!!11eleven!

    Do you know how many american babies they will have to sacrifice per square inch of that road?
    I didn't think so! /sarcasm

    Hey... how about the view-point that Microsoft is actually paying for half of that road - which WILL NOT BE MICROSOFT PROPERTY ONCE BUILT.
    Or... the fact that it appears that the community actually needs that overpass.

    Easing Congestion

    The city of Redmond says the overpass will relieve congestion on other streets and support a big employer in the region, though one cutting jobs lately.
    Microsoft said in January that it's eliminating as many as 5,000 jobs, including some from its Seattle-area workforce of 41,480.

    "This project is a mobility improvement for the area as a whole," said Lou Gellos, a spokesman for Microsoft.
    An existing bridge a few blocks away is congested and a nightmare for pedestrians and bicycle riders, he said.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  4. Do we have all the facts? by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How much does Microsoft pay in local property taxes? I would hope they have paid in a lot more than the cost of this project. Local governments are almost always willing to make concessions to businesses that make up a large part of their tax base by contributing to property taxes, state income taxes (by providing jobs), and sales taxes (which Microsoft pays very little of, not being a retail business). I would expect them to do similar improvements for a shopping mall, why not a tech firm? If the local government is giving them a free ride on property taxes AND subsidizing this improvement, then yes, local taxpayers have a right to be pissed off. But since a good number of people in Redmond owe their livelihood to M$ either directly or indirectly, I'd expect most of the taxpayers to keep their mouths shut. Plus, doesn't this overpass benefit everybody by keeping some cars off of the main highway?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  5. You have it backwards by taustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Were this any lesser company, 100% of the cost would be paid for by tax dollars. That Microsoft is contributing half is either a sginficant act of generosity on their part, or a major triumph of democracy over corporate greed and corruption. Either way, it's a victory for taxpayers.

    It was a similar situation when Disneyland wanted their own exit on the I-5 in Anaheim. There were significant reasons from the taxpayers point of view to do this - it greatly improved traffic in that section of the freeway, and throughout that part of Anaheim - but Disney still ended up paying for a significant portion of the cost. (In their case, it was a damned good investment in their wholly owned subsidiary, the city of Anaheim.)

  6. Re:Then there's nothing wrong with the Alaskan roa by Desert_Scarecrow · · Score: 3, Informative

    You obviously don't live in the area or drive on the 40th street overpass. I do. I don't work for Microsoft, and I would use that road several times per month just in the course of travelling to various entertainment venues. What we have here is a non-story about a project that is useful, estimated to cost between 15-36M, and which Microsoft has already dropped $11M on. Show me how many Seattle businesses are willing to put extra cash of their own (in addition to tax base they already supply) on the line to dig their fancy tunnel. Oh yeah, the only people in Seattle that regularly write checks for public works are retired Microsoft employees...weird.

  7. Typical Unimaginative Solution From Redmond by deanston · · Score: 3, Funny

    Real FOSS nerds would just build a catapult, a flying car, or teleporter to get across. Green engineers would have demanded that 2 UNDER-passes be built, one for humans to bicycle across, and another for critters that live in the woods to have corridors connecting their shrinking landscape. Apple or Google would plan on building light rails or trams that will eventually connect all their campuses and stores. IBM would just hire only illegal Mexican workers skilled at running across highways. Obviously Seattle isn't the most innovative regional planners they purport to be. Wimps.

  8. What annoys me.. by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is it MS needs to lay-off employees but can throw 36.5 million on this?

    The state should not give tax payer money to a monopolistic company damaging the local economy by laying off people when clearly they didn't financially need to.

  9. Yeah but there's 25,000 of them, and more. by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's a lot of jobs. When you realize that some cities would fork over hundreds of millions in annual tax abatements just to get that many jobs, pitching in on a bridge is not a bad deal.

    --
    This is my sig.
  10. Re:Pure Parasites. by Your.Master · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Okay, twitter:

    1) Microsoft still pays huge amounts of taxes to the locale so it is certainly not a burden. You can bicker about whether it's as much a boon as it should be but there's no question it's a boon to the city.
    2) Why don't more MS employees live in Redmond? Are you serious? Where do you live where everybody works within 3 miles of where they live.
    3) This "bridge" is not on private property. It's on public property. It's not only to serve Microsoft. It connects two points in Redmond that happen both to have Microsoft offices. It also benefits, for example, Nintendo and Boeing. And everybody in Redmond.
    4) The 40000 people of Redmond should fund the basic public infrastructure of their city because that's the role of the government of Redmond.

    Then the Ireland thing comes completely out of nowhere.

  11. If you lived in Redmond, you'd know why by CokoBWare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you lived in Redmond, WA, you'd know why the article's author is full of shit. Try commuting from main campus, and with a company that has had significant expansion over the last few years, commutes are painful, streets are crowded, and traffic is always challenged either with going to or coming from work. There are traffic studies done ALL THE TIME in Redmond, and if you only felt the pain of the congestion in this small town, you'd know that MS didn't have to offer to pay for anything for this bridge, but they are.