From: boba@miki.pictel.com (Bob Alexander)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Keywords: zoning,public.policy,taxes,subsidy
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:03:15 GMT

In article <Bu8nH2.ArC@world.std.com> geer@world.std.com (Dan Geer) writes:
>The occasion is that Lotus is engaged in the the modern kind of
>corporate blackmail - "Give us a huge whopping tax break or we'll move
>out of town".

You've got an attitude problem.  Lotus pays a lot of money to Cambridge:
more than the value of the services it receives.  They pay that money
because the city would confiscate their property if they didn't.  Who is
blackmailing whom?

Meanwhile, Lotus is trying to save money, something any good business
should do.  Would you have preferred that they simply move out without
giving Cambridge an opportunity to negotiate?  At least they wouldn't be
"blackmailing" you.

Or, would you rather that they simply pay any tax rate you specify and
stay put, regardless of the effect on their business?  Sorry, you can't
have your cake and eat it too.  This is still a free enough country that
Lotus can vote with its feet.

>I need to cast some doubt on the desirability of Lotus as the object of
>such governmental largess.

Is it largess?  If the gov't keeps taxes high, Lotus will leave.  If it
cuts taxes, Lotus will stay and continue to pay taxes.  Cambridge will
receive lower revenues in either case.  By cutting taxes, you are not
subsidizing Lotus, you are merely cutting your losses.

>                                                      Another is
>to question whether this subsidy ($800,000 per year for 15 years, plus
>the regulatory and housing costs)

What subsidy?  A subsidy when the gov't takes money from one group of
people and gives it to another.  A tax cut allows a corporation or
individual to keep money they honestly earned.

>                        One line of reasoning I am pursuing is that
>Lotus' idea of how substantial its competitive disadvantages are must
>be reviewed in light of its intellectual property stance. 

Lotus' lawsuits (which I disagree with) are irrelevant.  Lotus is arguing
its interpretation of federal copyright law in federal court.  The court
has decided that Lotus' user interface is protected by federal law.  Why
should the city of Cambridge try to punish Lotus for asserting rights that
the federal government has ruled are legitimate and proper?

>             In addition, Lotus seeks abrogation of Cambridge's
>zoning ordinance with respect to bulk, density and open space
>requirements, so as to build a new, fortress-like headquarters building
>on land otherwise reserved for affordable housing.

If Lotus leaves Cambridge, you're going to need a lot more affordable
housing.  If they stay, maybe more people will be employed and they'll
be able to pay market rates for housing.

>I hope and imagine that there are other computing professionals who
>might wish to provide statements to the Council indicating, say, that
>Lotus may not be a viable company in its present configuration for long
>or that its posture on innovation and intellectual property are
>distinctly at odds with community standards.

Before you listen to any pundits, make sure they have a track record of
predicting such things correctly.  Otherwise, you're better off flipping
a coin.

     Bob Alexander                                     boba@pictel.com
       The more the government does, the better libertarianism looks
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     Organizations don't have opinions; people do.  The above opinions
     do not reflect those of the directors, stockholders, managers, or
     other employees of PictureTel.

Newsgroups: ne.politics