Well, this is based only on my familiarity with the area (it is being built in the part of Nevada where I live), so I can't back this up with any hard number I will admit, but I don't know how long that land would have remained unused. It's not like its some random patch of desert, its fairly close to Reno and has been slated for SOME sort of industrial development for a while now. Now, is it better to have Tesla pay no property tax or anything for a while and have something big there guaranteed than to wait for some random corporation to move hear and set up shop in that area? I don't know, I don't have access to that kind of info. But that's where the objection comes from, at least partially.Rob Lister wrote:
What would the good folks in Nevada get in terms of property taxes on that otherwise undeveloped land? What would they get in Sales Taxes from sales that do not otherwise exist? Tripe.
It appears to me that Nevada's risk amounts to building some roads and accommodating infrastructure. If the Musk venture is successful (and it will be nearly 10 years before we'll know) then the payback is going to be enormous for the good folk in that state (Nyarl notwithstanding ).
Another part of the objection is the rumors that Tesla had decided on that spot months and months ago, and that our lawmakers basically gave them all these concessions unnecessarily because it was already a done deal whether we gave Tesla what they asked for or not. Again, I don't know how accurate these rumors are (I DO know that construction out there began well before it was announced) but that's another part of the objection.