# Norfolk Mayor: NS decision to move HQ to Atlanta "imminent"



## VAtrainfan (Oct 3, 2018)

This has been coming for some time apparently, but Norfolk Mayor Kenny Alexander today told reporters that the city's counter offers to keep Norfolk Southern's headquarters in Norfolk have fallen on deaf ears and the railroad is intent on moving to Atlanta, and that the city of Atlanta is close to approving a $1.75B tax incentive deal.

https://pilotonline.com/business/ports-rail/article_9a1a3842-c71f-11e8-87b9-6b6829282ae5.html


----------



## cpotisch (Oct 3, 2018)

VAtrainfan said:


> and that the city of Atlanta is close to approving a $1.75B tax incentive deal.


[rolls eyes] Here we go again with cities offering absolutely massive tax incentives just to get multi-billion dollar companies to put their headquarters there.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Oct 3, 2018)

Imagine whats going on behind the Scenes with the New Amazon Headquarters hustle??!!!


----------



## railiner (Oct 3, 2018)

Hey, that is big money...can't blame businesses for doing what's in their best interest....


----------



## cpotisch (Oct 14, 2018)

railiner said:


> Hey, that is big money...can't blame businesses for doing what's in their best interest....


True, but you _can_ blame cities and states for choosing to lose out on billions of dollars in tax revenue on something which really is not in their best interest.


----------



## jis (Oct 14, 2018)

I think it is more complicated than it is being suggested, and I don’t know how the whole picture looks. It is arguably reasonable to forego some tax revenue to seriously enlarge your tax base. The devil is in the details in each case as to whether net net the taxing region comes out ahead over a reasonable period of time, say 15-30 years. So I think an unequivocal claim that in all cases such deals are detrimental is relatively baseless.


----------



## cpotisch (Oct 14, 2018)

jis said:


> I think it is more complicated than it is being suggested, and I don’t know how the whole picture looks. It is arguably reasonable to forego some tax revenue to seriously enlarge your tax base. The devil is in the details in each case as to whether net net the taxing region comes out ahead over a reasonable period of time, say 15-30 years. So I think an unequivocal claim that in all cases such deals are detrimental is relatively baseless.


I agree that the devil is in the details, and I didn't mean to make an umbrella statement about all tax incentives. However, all too many of them are unnecessary and detrimental, and in those cases it is fair to say criticize them.


----------



## railiner (Oct 14, 2018)

Once you pay "protection money", there is no end to it....


----------



## jis (Oct 14, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is more complicated than it is being suggested, and I don’t know how the whole picture looks. It is arguably reasonable to forego some tax revenue to seriously enlarge your tax base. The devil is in the details in each case as to whether net net the taxing region comes out ahead over a reasonable period of time, say 15-30 years. So I think an unequivocal claim that in all cases such deals are detrimental is relatively baseless.
> ...


My main concern is that all too often I have found that those who criticize have no more clue than I do about the overall picture and the necessity or lack thereof. It comes often from a doctrinaire political position rather than based on demonstrable facts.


----------



## bretton88 (Oct 14, 2018)

jis said:


> I think it is more complicated than it is being suggested, and I don’t know how the whole picture looks. It is arguably reasonable to forego some tax revenue to seriously enlarge your tax base. The devil is in the details in each case as to whether net net the taxing region comes out ahead over a reasonable period of time, say 15-30 years. So I think an unequivocal claim that in all cases such deals are detrimental is relatively baseless.


The real problem I have with Atlanta throwing 1.75 billion at NS is that they might not see the massive expansion in tax revenue. A lot of these new employees will probably live in the suburbs and spend a majority of their money there. It would make more sense if there was regional incentives too, but that article made it sound like it was City incentives only.


----------

