Are these incentives a good deal?

January 31, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Gov. Mitch Daniels dished out $6.3 million in incentives as part of Defender Directâ??s expansion announcement yesterday. But was the carrot a good deal for us taxpayers?

Defender Direct, which sells home security and satellite dish systems, plans to add 1,100 people, many of them at its Indianapolis headquarters and the rest elsewhere in the state.

The company promises the new jobs will pay an average of at least $18 an hour, not including benefits. Some of the jobs are for call centers, while others are higher-level positions.

A consultant in Cleveland who wrote Ohioâ??s economic development plan thinks the incentives, which amount to about $5,700 per job, are worth the price. â??Those are very high wages, those are very good jobs,â?? says the consultant, Don Iannone.

Iannone reminds that in Ohio a low-income job is defined as paying $9.71 an hour or less. That makes up the bottom quarter of all jobs in Ohio. So $18 doesnâ??t sound bad to him.

What do you think? Was this incentive package priced right? Should the state have offered incentives at all?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • This sounds like a great job pricing, better than some get paid in other fields. I just hope that they keep this expansion. It will be a big boost for Indiana's Economy and the US.
  • The state should never offer incentives. Why should I subsidize someone else's business ?

    And cable installers don't make $18 an hour, more like $8.

    The whole thing reeks.
  • $18 an hour is worth it. Decent wages for good jobs. Unlike some of the unsustainable union jobs, that makes sense.

    This is not your cable guy installer, these are higher tech jobs, and will be good for Indiana.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT