Google-NASA Partnership Backlash 270
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.'"
Alternative. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Excellent services... (Score:2, Funny)
That NASA garbage service must be pretty high tech.
Pay up, Biatch~! (Score:3, Funny)
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!"
Re:Politicians are the same everywhere (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So instead of (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Santa Clara needs the money? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:3, Funny)
Umm, try like maybe $220K.
Move to Houston :) (Score:3, Funny)