More from Amanda Lehmert's Marty Kotis "incentive grant" Facebook thread

George Hartzman; Amanda Lehmert and Brian Clarey, please explain how Marty's incentive grant is such a great idea; [no answer yet]

Company seeks $2,871 each for higher paying 31 jobs, after Marty Kotis received $44,559 per "speculative" low paying job from City Council


What kind of successful retail business would have about seven low paying "full time equivalent" jobs next to a highway interchange and a waste water treatment plant, that Marty was/is/just opened on Battleground Avenue across from the movie theater?

Greensboro's tax rate, compared to Charlotte, Durhan, Raleigh and Winston Salem


If Marty's property was worth $1.1 million, and the publicly funded highway comes through, which might not happen, and he opens a taxpayer subsidized Sheets or comparable gas station, the value may pop to somewhere around $4 million.

We gave $312,000; At .6325 cents per year, the city should make its money back in [at least 17 years]

$1.1 million - $4 million = $2.9 million x $0.6325 per $100 = $18,342 per year more in Greensboro taxes, in exchange for 7 low paying, no to little benefit jobs and big profits for whoever ends up owning the land and the business if Marty sells out for a nice profit.

$312,000 / $18,342 = 17 years before Greensboro's taxpayers get their money back, not including interest that could have been made on the money if it wasn't thrown at this not in the best interests of Greensboro's taxpayer's incentive grant.

$312,000 @3% over 17 years = $515,688.46

So not only did we give away $312,000 to line Marty's pockets, we'll lose another couple hundred thousand at least by not still having the money.

City Council rolled Greensboro's taxpayers like a donut.

If Marty had dug a well and it broke, who would be in charge of fixing it, compared to a city based system?

Who is now charged for law enforcement, fire protection and inspections now?

And then the low paying jobs can get more public assistance, so Marty can maximize profitability even more via everyone else's money

Foodstamps Are Corporate Welfare


Some of the conversations between Marty Kotis and George Hartzman on his free water sewer outside Greensboro's city limits


Same thing only different;

How much have the Vaughan's received from Cone Mills/Wilbur Ross for free methane from the City of Greensboro?


A couple interesting threads on Marty Kotis and his purchased minions


1 comment:

W.E. Heasley said...

Maybe a good question is: “why” do economic development departments exist in the first place and the subsequent “grants” [taxpayer money] bestowed and directed by politicos upon firms or individuals is such a grand idea (and apparently considered business as usual).

Economic development departments are a political invention and have little to do with the discipline of economics. One can clearly argue that the political invention of the economic development department is merely an extension of the government privilege economy that was the main economic organization of both eastern and western civilization prior to the year 1700.

Government privilege economies are those economies where the power purveyors, be they monarchs, despots or freely elected politicos, dispense resources. One then worships at the alter of government in order to seek gain (resources). Government privilege economies were supplanted by free people making free decisions also known as the free market circa 1700. Stated another way, Adam Smith in his book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was an attempt to explain how free people making free decisions were causing exponential growth [wealth] enjoyed by the masses vs. the old economic organization of government privilege economies which created little wealth and the wealth was of the crony variety.

Hence the economic development department is a conduit for the politico to dispense resources. The economic development department deploys normative economics (predictive economics) through estimates and guesses that are based, more times than not, on confirmation bias in relation to the pet project of the power purveyor [politico in charge at the moment]. One ends with the notional proposition that the politicos pet project and subsequent handing out of taxpayer money is a grand idea based on estimated guesses.

The insidious part of this entire dispensing of resources at the alter of government is the phenomena of: “If you do it, I can do it, and if I do it, we can all do it”. How so?

Every little politico is every city, town, village and burg trumpets economic incentives. The incentives they dispense are very much associated with political power and political constituency building exercises via other people’s money (taxpayer money). When challenged on the value of such incentives politico P of village A points to the politicos of village B and puts forth the notional argument that if we don’t do it in village A they in village B will do it and hence village A loses out. Meanwhile, the politicos of villages C through Z make the same argument. It is pure political dupery and nitwitery because they are all doing it and legitimize their actions by pointing to the other parties doing the same thing, but in essence, they all want to do it anyway for the political power and political constituency building exercises. Hence we end where we begin: “If you do it, I can do it, and if I do it, we can all do it”.