I can stop up a sprinkler head going full blast with 2 wedges of wood while completely blindfolded. Had to do it to get my state Firefighter 2 certification. Don't know why I posted that. Seemed apropos.
A lot of it is "this is the way we've always done it and we ain't changing for you!" I've heard that said more than once. I don't mess with interior sprinklers, I just get water to them.
I would think the original sprinkler system would have been way overkill for a newer office space because anything health care wise is way over sized. That's just what I've seen.
I should have demanded tax incentives from the county before I built my house. As it is, I actually have to pay them instead.
Metro Nashville has a good gig going where they make anyone renovating a building in the downtown area completely renovate the storm water. It's a simple easy fix to a failing system. People raise hell about the tax breaks some have gotten here, but they are spending millions on fixing that just to cut in a new door or paint the exterior of an existing building.
I can better understand the breaks if the company is doing something to improve the infrastructure that has a genuine public benefit. The tax money would be spent on those type things anyway. Just asking, but isn't that system pure semantics? It's seems like it's just who pays to do it. Is there an actual benefit or disadvantage to doing it that way?
Pretty much just semantics. Yes, they're saving money tax wise but they're spending a lot on infrastructure that's not normal for what they're doing that the taxes would have eventually paid for (or been budgeted for, but never actually used for that specific purpose because the mayor gets fired)
I would be fine if every state, county, and city all said they were ending tax breaks in business recruitment. But, unfortunately, if you want to recruit businesses of notable size now, tax breaks are part of it because every place is doing it.
It's part of the game. Not necessarily a fan of it, but understand that you have to do it. Unlike pro-stadium construction at taxpayer cost, I at least can understand that the tax breaks might be worth it long term for additional economic development as a result. There is also the point of "Is it too much?" for some areas as well.
I was actually just joking, but I see now I misread your "don't get me started on that". Thought it was about that issue, not stadium construction.
The pro-stadium construction wouldn't piss me off as much if you had to use local contractors and local suppliers.
why not both? the tail has been wagging the dog for so long, bribery has become normal. the city, the market, etc has value too. not just the stadium and presence of the league.
