all of this ;..
if someone wants to argue about the entire state not offering retail incintives that is something different but as long as cities are competing for the tax dollars it is a game you must play
moore has made tons and tons off of thier tax incintives mostly at the expense of south okc ..
1) Considering they receive incentives from virtually everywhere they locate a store, I think that's pretty good evidence they would not have. According to the COSTCO thread, they even got a similar package from the Dallas area stores they put in and Dallas is a virtual no-brainer for a retailer like COSTCO.
2) Again, per the COSTCO thread, they received similar packages or even got more from most all other cities in this area. It is also not known if the amount they got from OKC was already negotiated down from an original request.
For COSTCO, there was no big pool of money. No one wrote them a check. They just got a deferral on their property taxes. Again, without COSTCO that plot of land would produce a very small amount of tax revenue. With the COSTCO building, gas station, parking places and (if any other retail is attached) the city will get a much MUCH larger amount of tax revenue in a few years.
The only gift COSTCO got was a deferral on their property taxes - tax revenue the city would not have gotten anyway if COSTCO had not come here.
I can't talk for Wal Mart or Target but if they didn't seek or receive any incentives, that is their choice. COSTCO doesn't put in stores in the number the other 2 retailers do. OKC will only get one and maybe 2 more COSTCO's - and who knows, they may not seek incentives for the other stores.
A quick look showed that Denver suburbs gave incentives to COSTCO to build. The City of Arvada offered $9 million in sales tax rebates to help with construction costs. The CIty of Denver offered Target $4 million to locate a store downtown.
So basically we throw money at major retailers based on popular trends. Walmart gets the bad rap, but Costco, Cabelas, Bass Pro, puts small businesses out of business also.
I couldn't agree with this statement more!! Also an expat, this is my argument as well. OKC needs to expand to compete. Like it or not, OKC is Oklahoma's largest city and is best positioned to compete against other large metros. OKC is not Dallas BUT OKC should strive to compete or offer a lower cost alternative for businesses there and elsewhere - where the business can expand less expensively but make a HUGE impact to OKC and Oklahoma.
Ask Milwaukee if they take a back seat to Chicago. Certainly not in the same league as Chicago but Milwaukee tries to compete and use Chicago's disadvantages to its advantage. Ditto Portland, San Diego, Saint Paul, Baltimore, Charlotte, most other cities relatively close to a larger or more well known city/metro.
OKC should indeed go after those back office jobs Dallas probably doesn't want nor need. OKC should definitely offer incentives to move companies downtown. Should we not have checks and balances? No, we should and they should be constructive and not just "help the homeless" arguments. But we need critical mass of job growth to compete with the monster that DFW and Houston are. That is OKC's competition - so any growth particularly with that cheap of incentive to come downtown - is a no brainer.
I have to say this is why I'm so happy the city didn't fully change over. We need about 10 or so more years of economic growth (and population growth) before we can have an OKC dominated by progressives. Just look at Seattle, this city is failing now but at least we can afford it given the massive growth.
Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!
I think JoBeth got exactly what she (and her supporting bloc) wanted with their no vote: serve notice that incentives might not be automatic, raise social service needs awareness, and initiate the discussion of those items within the public. ALL THE WHILE KNOWING THE INCENTIVE PACKAGE WAS GOING TO PASS. Although a smart politician gets benefit from a losing hand, the smartest are able to support both sides of the vote. I think that is what JoBeth, Nikki Nice and James Cooper were able to accomplish.
Last edited by Dob Hooligan; 06-06-2019 at 05:50 PM. Reason: Name identification
Thank you!
Tulsa also has a more definitively defined region where the most discretionary wealth is located. OKCs is much more widely spread across the entire mero area making it a harder decision to locate or where to locate.
Edit: Tulsa did, in fact, give them an incentive.
Edit 2: something called freepressOKCreported the reason for the additional $1 million was due to additional grading and creek relocation of the OKC lot.
OKC clearly wants certain retailers who are not going to come here organically because of reputation and demographics. Threads on here prove that point. COSTCO had OKC as a lower priority so to decrease their risk, they asked for the incentive which OKC will benefit from taxwise in a few years. In the meantime, OKC shoppers have another choice and it costs them nothing because no money was "given" to them.
Abolishing sales tax on food and eliminate the state corporate income tax might help more than company incentives. Individual income tax, too. All tax reform changes would have broader appeal by making the state more attractive to both workers and companies from outside the state. Everybody would benefit. But coming to terms as to how to tax elsewhere to make up for lost revenue would probably be next to impossible to agree on at the state capitol. Probably a good amount of money could be found by eliminating most incentives from the state.
You are absolutely correct. Once the incentives are approved the money is not paid until the requirements are met. As for Costco it was never about getting them here but rather getting them in Oklahoma City. The incentives to Costco will be recouped by the city 10 times over in sales tax revenue.
A friend of my niece and his partner have a condo near downtown Austin - nearing a million in value - pays nearly $20k per year just in property tax.
Oklahoma has the 10th lowest combined state and local taxes (sales, property, state income) at 8.6% while Texas has the 6th lowest at 7.6%
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks