Thompson's plan for poor counties

April 10, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
One piece of Jill Long Thompsonâ??s economic development platform calls for the stateâ??s offering greater incentives in counties with lower incomes and other measures of well-being.

Under her tier system, the less affluent the county, the greater the incentives available to businesses.

Thompsonâ??s challenger for the Democratic nomination for governor, Indianapolis architect Jim Schellinger, says favoring some counties over others in the competition for jobs is a recipe for resentment.

Thompsonâ??s plan probably will find receptive ears in rural areas that havenâ??t kept up with Indianapolis, as well as in West Lafayette and other places that are attracting development.

How do you feel about it?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • MarkApril 14, 2008 9:27 AM
    It's a backwards policy. It's the same policy states use in the abatements and incentives process to lure companies (a trend that needs some serious exceptions and groundrules before it ruins the entire property tax system for the country). Instead of States competed now we are going to be having counties fighting one another to see who can throw in the most. If a county like Washington County is at the bottom and the state gives them 100K for a business to expand or be lured there, then that county could also throw in 100K of their own money, double the incentives and then a medium sized county would not have a chance at being able to match that. Then development will happen in more rural areas where there aren't homes, proper infrastructure, proper size of schools and will then just cause more of a problem for that county. I think it is a bad idea IMO.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT