Indiana needs film incentives

July 12, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Letters To The Editor

The recent opening of the motion picture “The Fault in Our Stars,” based on the novel by Indianapolis’ own John Green, has led to a re-examination of Indiana’s film incentive policy. The movie, based in Indianapolis, was filmed in Pittsburgh due to Pennsylvania’s more lucrative tax incentives. It was more cost-effective to re-create the Indianapolis Museum of Art’s iconic Funky Bones sculpture than it was to film at the 100 Acres in Indianapolis.

Indiana is one of 12 states that do not offer tax incentives to bolster their film and media industries [Hicks column, June 16]. By essentially giving production companies a coupon, Indiana could entice more production in our state, encourage entrepreneurs to open media companies and create jobs, and could help revitalize a stagnant production industry.

Critics argue that the tax incentive only produces short-term benefits for high-profile films and companies, and creates transient, low-paying jobs. This is not true.

First, tax incentives are not only for big budget Hollywood films. The incentives are designed to bolster both in-state and attract out-of-state businesses that produce a range of media—industrial, pharmaceutical, and training videos, TV commercials and documentaries. This creates a more robust film and media industry that results in more permanent high-paying jobs, and increased sustainable income in a variety of pay ranges for self-employed contractors.

While a number of international businesses are headquartered locally, they chose to film outside Indiana. Because of the vacuum created by lack of incentives, Indiana’s industry is small and the infrastructure for productions has migrated to those neighboring states with incentives.

A production tax incentive is necessary for Indiana to become competitive. A comprehensive incentive will allow Indiana to encourage productions here, increase revenue for the state, retain graduates and generate long-term business and high-paying jobs for many Hoosiers.

Glenn Pratt


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.