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.'"
Complaint rings a little hollow (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Google Searching For Tax Break? (news article) (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why is it Google's problem to fix? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Completely Ridiculous (Score:1, Insightful)
Man, that really burns my arse (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] before they whine about their productive citizens not paying enough!
A comment on the tone of the article (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Google Searching For Tax Break? (news article) (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks like the government's caught onto the business use of "cost."
"By going open-source, Linux users are costing Microsoft untold millions. They should all be forced to pay for a Windows license."
Unfortunately, Microsoft has made good headway in making Linux users pay the Microsoft tax.
Re:Google Searching For Tax Break? (news article) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A comment on the tone of the article (Score:2, Insightful)
Either way, it's not about MS or Google. It's about local government officials looking at their own interests in short sighted manor with disregards to their obligatory responsibility to citizens and what they represent.
It's all so confusing (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Pay up, Biatch~! (Score:3, Insightful)
Shucks, I have a couple hundred thousand dollars in unfunded retirement needs, but I sure as hell don't expect Google to give it to me. Their search engine might help me earn it, though.
only in America... (Score:2, Insightful)
You've got it backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So instead of (Score:1, Insightful)
Based on track record, it's clear that they don't. The way public education has been going, America's future is very bleak.
Re:Complaint rings a little hollow (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Y'all don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
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.