THE BROTHERS OF CHARITY


and the state of concession.

Imagine this, if you will.

I want to build a $1 million state-of-the-cinematic-and-technological-arts movie theater in your city. I have assets worth more than $78 million, but I'm only willing to invest $667,000 of my own money in the project. I'd like the state to give me the rest.

Some state officials will likely object. So I'll explain that the state grant is needed to make the economics of the proposed project work.

Some local politicians are also likely to object. And I'll simply explain that when the project was conceptualized, it was conceptualized with a subsidy, and that nothing has changed.

Some taxpayers will surely object. But I'll tell them that I just can't do any of this stuff without a subsidy.

When all three of those groups get together and suggest this might not be such a good idea, I'll suggest that my new theater will be a source of income and property and sales tax revenues for the city, county, and state. I'll suggest that they should be thankful for this money, even as I conveniently neglect to mention that, based on my own revenue projections, the only way I can turn a profit on this venture is with their subsidy, and so I want to treat them like an angel investor, except, of course, that they won't have any actual ownership equity in my business.

Did I mention that I bought the land on which I intend to build from a public authority at a small fraction of its open-market cost? And did I also mention that the headquarters of my other business, located next door to where I plan to build, had 73% of its costs paid for by public funds and taxpayer dollars? I didn't? Well, shame on me.

Now. Just to recap: I want to fund a new business venture that will cost roughly 1/78th of what my current business is worth, and I want the state to fund one-third of my new business, because that's what I need to make the economics work, and because when I dreamed up this new business, I always imagined the state would pay for one third of it, and because, well, if they don't, then I can't -- or, more accurately, won't -- do it myself.

So, what do you think? Sound like a good deal? Like something you, as a state official, or a local politician, or a state and/or local taxpayer, could rally behind and really support?

What if these numbers were actually much higher? Say, about 1200% higher? What if I really wanted the state to pony up $4 million of a $12 million business venture? And what if my primary business were worth, at least according to Forbes magazine, about $929 million? Would my request, my attitude, my sheer fucking audacity make any sense to you whatsoever? Would you, living in an overtaxed city in an overtaxed county in an overtaxed state, think that would be a fine and fitting investment of your hard-earned, too-easily-taken money? Or would you laugh in my face, tell me to use my own damned money, and remind me that the last people in the world who ought to feed (once more) at the public trough are rich, arrogant, always-thinking-you're-entitled people like me?

Oh, yeah. One more question: would you change your mind about any of this, and especially about my unmitigated greed and gall, if I just happened to own your favorite football team?

Here in Pittsburgh, we're about to find out.

Posted: Tue - August 12, 2008 at 11:09 AM          

©