HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Organization: The World
	<2798822096@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
	<1992Sep9.124703.759@miki.pictel.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:15:05 GMT


From: boba@miki.pictel.com (Bob Alexander)
>Let's say Lotus pays $1M in taxes and receives $0.5M in city services.  That
>means that Lotus is subsidizing others.  If Lotus' taxes are cut to $0.75M,
>Lotus is not receiving a $0.25M subsidy.  In fact, it's still paying a
>$0.25M subsidy.  Regardless of what happens to everyone else's taxes, Lotus
>is not being subsidized.  (BTW, these are not the real numbers.)

Let's say Lotus pays $1M in taxes and receives $1.5M in city
services...

Besides, what do you count as "city services"? Just direct services
like sewage removal? Or some fair share of, for example, education?

It would seem Lotus might have some vested interest in a literate job
pool.

Etc.

It's a hard numbers game to play unless you work from the point of
view of parity (e.g. Lotus pays as much, proportionately, as TMC down
the block or whomever), in which case the numbers argument doesn't
look very good for Lotus unless they can successfully argue that they
are taxed proportionately more than their neighbors. Unless the tax
laws are being applied unfairly to them it's hard to understand how.

Besides, I don't think that's the argument they're using.

It's just a pure leverage argument, from everything I have heard.
Everyone here is trying desparately to turn it into a matter of
fairness or justice which I don't think is the issue at all. It's "my"
ball, change the rules, or I take the ball home.

At the very least it would be interesting to see something from Lotus
claiming that they believe they are being treated unfairly in some
way, rather than what it seems to be, which is just playing their
strong card.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:35:11 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <ART.92Sep8105249@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <Bu8nJD.Avt@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".  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.  Lotus also seeks
>   nullification of the ordinance limiting the size and kind of signage on
>   buildings.  Lotus makes none of these claims itself, preferring to
>   speak through its developer (Boston Properties).
>
>There is something wrong in Lotus wanting concessions to keep its payroll
>in Cambridge?  Lotus owes nothing, zero, zip, nada to Cambridge.  If
>Lotus doesn't like the way Cambridge does things they are free to pack up
>and go to some place that does things more to their liking.
...
>Then just let them go.  I'm sure that Reading or Natick or Athol would be
>glad to see them.

Have you ever been to Athol? 
-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Don't forget. Cambridge lost 14% of its people '60=>'90
Date: 12 Sep 92 14:27:34 GMT
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

In article <2680@mitech.com> gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:
>According to U.S. Census figures, Cambridge has lost 14% of its population
>from 1960 to 1990. Going down from 95,776 to 81,769.
>...
>The political and economic environment may be right again for
>further losses of jobs and people.

In the early 1980s, I used to hang around with a lot of people my
age on the campuses of various Cambridge and Boston universities.  Boston
was a magnet for people of that age, and it became a very stable
environment:  many, if not most, students would settle in the Boston
area upon graduation.

Few do today.

Why?
	1)  It's hard to get a job, and if you get one, starting
	    salary is much less than it once was; and
	2)  Rent and home prices are ridiculously high.

Students go back to where they came from, when opportunity doesn't
present itself near the college campus.  Cambridge has lost much of
its luster for people in their 20s.

That's the single most significant reason behind the accelerating demo-
graphics of aging in our area:  we're not attracting young people to stay
any more.

-rich
Newsgroups: ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: benji@csa.bu.edu (Benjamin Cline)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Observations on schools & money
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:55:30 GMT
	<52569@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1992Aug31.141745.26529@m5.harvard.edu>
	<2577@mitech.com>
Organization: Boston University Computer Science Department
In-reply-to: gjc@mitech.com's message of 1 Sep 92 09:35:40 GMT


>Physics is itself considered an advanced course. It is optional and
>not a requirement for graduation. It is -rare- to have further subdivisions
>within an advanced level course.


>And that was the case when I went to school in PG County Maryland in 1975.

>If you know of any public school in the country that has more than one
>level of physics course, please site it as an example.

When I was a senior at Holliston (Ma) High School three years ago there was
a "regular" as well as an "advanced" physics class.

	benjamin
--
			    Benjamin Cline	
Boston University, Department of Computer Science	benji@cs.bu.edu
Systems Engineering, MathSoft, Inc.			benji@mathsoft.com
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: S&L deregulation & responsibility
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 19:51:46 GMT

In article <15607@ksr.com> cher@ksr.com (Mike Cherepov) writes:

   This is predictable and unimpressive.  Ideally, we would want to assign
   blame exactly in proportion to the guilt, whether dealing with a mugger
   or a president.

So what responsibility do you assign to the president for failing to
enforce the law, for the the lack of regulation of the S&L's?  You
seem to keep avoiding this question.  Given the magnitude of the S&L
crisis (its tremendous cost), I'd say that proportionality must throw
a great deal of blame on the president.

   I think that Hamilton's (the Real-Old-right, I guess) view of the
   executive makes sense.  He emphasized duration, responsibility, and
   power.  While this may seem too imperial, the results of the current
   diffusion of power, muddled responsibility, and split government with
   limited presidential and unlimited congressional tenure may be worse.

Are you saying that the president isn't really responsible, because
somehow it's the fault of Congress that the regulators let so much
slip by?

(There was an editorial cartoon in the Washington Post recently,
showing Bush standing on a podium in front of devestated houses in
South Dade Country, saying "Now, if only Congress had passed my
anti-Hurricane amendment...")
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:16:20 GMT
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <BuAzG3.ECM@world.std.com>, cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond) writes:
>>DW> == Dave Wetzel <Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com>
>> In effect, you'd be taking from one group of people to give to Lotus.
>
> Reducing services while maintaining the same tax rate is still,
> "taking from one group of people to give to Lotus".


How come nobody is picking up the rent control involvement in taxes here?
That is where the original problem with "income transfer" is coming
from that is putting the heat on companies like Lotus and on the
Cambridge City Council.

FACT: The average number of people per housing unit in Cambridge is 1.95
FACT: If that person is living in a 3-unit building or less
      he is probably paying about THREE-TIMES the amount of taxes
      to go to support city service as a person living in a 4-unit or
      larger building.

Most Cities have to deal with the problem of commercial tax rates
vs residential tax rates. And of course the politicians natural
reaction is to have a higher tax rate on commercial (read: non-voting)
as on residential.

But cambridge is suffering under a radically "enhanced" system
of tax bias. There is effectively two radically different tax rates
on essentially the same quality of housing, but which is technically
different, some being under rent control, and taxes at a much lower
rate per unit, and some being not under rent control, and taxed
at a much higher rate per unit.

The difference is much greater than the COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL ratio
you normally find.

Now, of course Cambridge also has a significant number of Units
owned by the Housing Authority. (2,700 units. Which is about 10% of
the stock of renter renter-occupied units).

These generate ZERO tax revenue.

On the other hand, 1,500 units are subsidized developments. Privately
owned (e.g. section-8 subsidy).

Guess what. These units generate MORE TAX REVENUE PER UNIT than
rent controlled properties. In fact, they generate almost as much as
market rate units.

Units owned by MIT/HARVARD etc. This is a special situation.
Every year these big institutions are able to negotiate
"payments instead of taxes." Legally they don't have to pay any property
taxes. Wouldn't that be nice? To be able to negotiate each year with the city?
Even the threat of being able to delay a payment for a month or two is 
certain to carry a -lot- of weight!

Rent controlled units. 12000 units generating significantly less tax
income per unit than any other form of housing in cambridge.

--------------------------

Is it fair to be transfering income/services from a person renting/living
in an building with 3 units over to a person living in a similar
unit that happens to have 4 or more units?

Does that make sense as a way to set tax policy?

--------------------------

-gjc
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: The 1992 Questions (was Re: Corporate Tax Ballot Question)
Date: 6 Sep 92 02:15:50 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep05.142734.83710@kronos.com>, richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun) writes:
> #3.  Requiring Reduced, Reusable or Recyclable Packaging
> 
> 	A YES vote would require most packaging used in Massachusetts
> 	to be reduced in size, reusable, or made of recycled or
> 	recyclable materials.
> 
> 	A NO vote would not require most packaging used in Massachusetts
> 	to be reduced, reusable or made of recycled or recyclable
> 	materials.
> [...]
> The recycling initiative has the best chance, IMHO.

I've become somewhat leery of recycling initiatives. It seems to be too
easy to be well-meaning but fumble-fingered. There are some details missing
from the above description, and the fact that they are missing frightens me.

1) What does "most" mean?
   Does that mean more than 50% of any packaging material must be recycled?
   What about specialized types of packaging which are so low in volume
   that recycling isn't productive, but has specific enough requirements
   that alternatives aren't usable? (Some electronics packaging I've seen
   would probably fall into this category). Is it 50% by volume, mass, or
   cost? If a manufacturer simply adds 51% (however measured) of styrofoam
   peanuts (in a seperate box, which is returned for re-use), can he simply
   bypass the law for his real packaging material?

2) What does "used" mean?
   Does this mean manufactured in this state? Or sold in this state? If the
   latter, does this mean that we, as massachussets residents, are not
   allowed to purchase from out-of-state companies that don't follow Mass.
   packaging regulations?

3) How will this be implemented? Simple thou-cannot-sell, or variable tax
   rates to encourage percentages? If the latter, who will administer and
   decide what industries get targetted?

Can someone find the actual text of the proposed law and post it?
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: tarl@apache.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Haitians as Political or Economic Refugees
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:44:25 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <2667@mitech.com> gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:
>In article <6211@transfer.stratus.com>, tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>> And, of course, Jamaica, Cuba and the Bahamas are all much more easily
>> reached via boat from Haiti than the U.S.
>
>Given the location and motion of the ocean currents and winds,
>not really.

I just double-checked with my atlas. As far as I can tell, the only way
from Haiti to the U.S. is by sailing THROUGH the bahamas or Turks and
Caicos (U.K.) islands. The prevailing current from Haiti goes pretty
much dead-straight through the bahamas. During the summer, the prevailing
winds seem to be the same, but I can't tell about the winter prevailing
winds (my atlas isn't that detailed).

You'd have to sail about 200km east-north-east from the furthest east spot
of Haiti's north coast before heading NW to the U.S. if you want to avoid
these islands entirely. That's a dramatic dogleg.

The first island in the way on the direct path is the rather large Great
Inagua island, about 100km from the Haitian coast. Cuba is about the same 
distance a little to the south, across the windward passage. Jamaica is 
about 200km away further to the south.

The U.S. (miami) is about 1000km away. Ten times further than other refuges.

>Q: Does Castro get paid rent for the US military base in Cuba?
>A: No. But, talk about your "tennant from hell" situations!

As I understand it, we have a 99-year treaty for the base, which includes
rent payments. Castro has refused payment since he wants the base gone. That
may change given his current economic difficulties . . .

-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: boba@miki.pictel.com (Bob Alexander)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:43:54 GMT

Barry Shein writes:
>Let's say Lotus pays $1M in taxes and receives $1.5M in city
>services...

Then Lotus deserves no tax cut.  But I doubt this is the case, since
commercial real estate is taxed at a higher rate than residential.

Also, the original posting accused Lotus of blackmailing Cambridge to
get a subsidy.  I asked "What subsidy?"  If Cambridge has evidence that
Lotus is getting more than their money's worth, let them present that
evidence.  Otherwise, don't make accusations.

>Besides, what do you count as "city services"? Just direct services
>like sewage removal? Or some fair share of, for example, education?

I count direct benefits only.  Secondary benefits are, as you point out,
impossible to calculate.  And Lotus' presence provides secondary benefits
to Cambridge (e.g. it attracts highly paid professionals to live, or at
least shop, in Cambridge.)

I don't know how to figure Lotus' "fair share" of education.  Lotus
has no children in school and gets very little benefit from
Cambridge's education system (since public education ends at high
school.)

>At the very least it would be interesting to see something from Lotus
>claiming that they believe they are being treated unfairly in some
>way, rather than what it seems to be, which is just playing their
>strong card.

I don't think Lotus is claiming unfairness.  It is the original poster
who made that claim.

     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
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:05:09 GMT

usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:

>Though I agree with much of what Bob A says here (Lotus has the right to 
>ask for anything they want, just like Cambrige has the right to reject 
>their requests), I thought this was wrong.  If Cambrige gives a tax cut to 
>Lotus, then the revenues lost will have to come from somewhere.  It will 
>probably come in the form of increased taxes on residents and other 
>businesses.  In effect, you'd be taking from one group of people to give 
>to Lotus.

Lotus employs people. Those people purchase goods and services from local
vendors in Cambridge.

The question to ask is:

"Is giving a tax break to Lotus going to cost more to the city than if 
Lotus were to move out?"

If the answer is yes, then don't give the tax break. If, however, there
would be substantial economic harm to other companies in the area, Cambridge
would do the right thing by granting the request.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: boba@miki.pictel.com (Bob Alexander)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:38:18 GMT

Barry Shein writes:
>>Your comments about Heinlein border on being an ad hominem attack.
>
>Perhaps you should look up the phrase 'ad hominem' before using it.

You appeared to be mocking Heinlein based on the behavior of characters
in a movie he may have been involved in.  Then you referred to Danielle
Steele in a way that I interpreted as mocking novelists' ideas.  I said
your comments *bordered* on an ad hominem attack.  If you did not intend
to mock Heinlein with your comments, I apologize.  But I *do* know what
"ad hominem" means.

>Here is your original comment:
>
>	One of my favorite authors, Robert Heinlein, believed you should
>	always do your duty.  But he also said that you should not let others
>	define for you what your duty is.
>
>Yet, if I am charged with the care of a small child (perhaps my own),
>then it is generally assumed by civilized society that that child
>defines my duty.

If I father a child, I have performed an act for which I should take
responsibility - and that's the sort of duty of which Heinlein
approved (and he frequently wrote about it.)  If someone leaves their
child on my doorstep, I do not have a duty to raise it (though I may
choose to do so.)  Someone else can not thrust that duty upon me.

     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.

Xref: sparky ne.politics:2292 alt.politics.clinton:4558 alt.politics.bush:4489 talk.politics.misc:44368
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Efficiency
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:59:38 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: ne
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Sep05.144415.82582@kronos.com> richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun) writes:
>
>The USA is likely to wind up like Great Britain: a shadow of its
>former self.  The only thing we can do to prevent this is to get rid
>of that $4 trillion international debt as quickly as we can, and put
>our people back to work.  Can it be done?
>
How much of the national debt is owed to banks and individuals outside the
country?  What kind of interest is the government paying on it?  Well, here's
an idea I just had - I'm no expert on economics and finance, so I wouldn't be
surprised if I'm entirely mistaken - maybe some of you can give a good
critique of it.  The idea is for the federal government to offer special
savings bonds, available only to American citizens and maybe American
corporations as well.  The bonds would have a relatively high interest rate,
maybe 7 or 8 percent.  The government would pay out more in interest, but get
some of it back in taxes, and the money would be redirected into our economy,
rather than into other countries' economies.  Does this make any sense at all?

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 14 Sep 92 08:56:27 GMT
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <BZS.92Sep11200822@ussr.std.com>, bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> But those issues are not peculiar to Lotus, are they? If their point
> is that everyone's taxes are too high for the services they receive
> then that should be what guides their behavior.

Not entirely, but who is to say that Lotus won't be the first in line?

The city-services problem seems to be worse the farther you get
from the Harvard area of Cambridge.

Lotus is in poor old east Cambridge. An area of town that has seen
the greatest influx of tax revenue due to all the commercial
development, but also the area famous for the $185 a month rent-controlled
rents on 3 and 4 bedroom apartments.

> Put another way: If Lotus does get an $800K/yr cut in taxes do you
> think it will make it easier or harder for you to get your sidewalk
> fixed?

In the short run, no. In the long run, if Lotus either gets its break,
(and everybody else will be next in line) or moves out, that will
put further preasure in Cambridge to realize that it has to be
a realistic residential area, and not some vast government-controlled
and/or owned Housing Project.

Although, that is assuming some sanity. I'm probably dreaming.
In the long-long-run we may be talking about conditions (high taxes
for low-results) that are going to drive out tax-paying job-creating
operations, and result in a further growth in the percentage of
cambridge that is owned by non-tax-paying entities. The non-profits
and the government, etc.

> Probably harder, right? And likely you'll also get this notice in your
> mail that your taxes are being raised to make up for this $800K/yr.

Not likely. My property is rent controlled. I pay the lowest taxes
per square-foot of residential living area in the northeast.

Owners of rent-controlled property don't care at all about property taxes.
Rents have been kept under inflation for the last 20 years, and any
tax increases get passed on to the tennants without raising the rents
to non-competitive levels.

Tennants of rent-controlled apartments don't care because they see themselves
getting a giant subsidy or bargain-of-a-lifetime.


-gjc