I attended the meeting also, and I wholeheartedly agree with Kenton. We
want to keep these businesses in Moscow.
I am fully in favor of a "tax increment financing" subsidy to the research
and technology businesses. My problem is that the tax subsidy goes to the
land developers (indirectly to the tenants). Could we give the subsidy
directly to the tenants to help with the rent on a private development?
The representatives of the three businesses agreed that suitable space to
expand into is hard or impossible to find in Moscow. Why isn't there
privately financed development for these businesses? They seem to be doing
ok. They can pay the rent. Isn't there enough return on investment to
build a privately financed office park? The Landis & Gyr Power office in
Seattle is housed in a privately capitalized office park. Why does the City
have to pay for the building here?
B. J. Swanson of Key Bank will be at the next installment of this series.
Would Key Bank finance a private development? Is it too risky?
Is it possible that this talk of a publicly subsidized office park has
soured the climate for a privately financed one? Would you (or Key Bank,
for instance) build an ofice park today, when you know that the City of
Moscow is going to subsidize your competition next month?
Finally, why can't the advocates of this project just come right out and say
this is a tax-financed subsidy? It is. All the hemming and hawing just
looks like they are covering something up. It is a subsidy to a worthy cause.
Fritz