From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Followup-To: ne.politics
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:52:49 GMT

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.

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

Fine, why would you want to keep them?

  Another is
   to question whether this subsidy ($800,000 per year for 15 years, plus
   the regulatory and housing costs) is, in fact, a sufficient and fair
   exchange to ensure that Lotus will remain a taxpayer and important
   employer in Cambridge.  That Lotus is, for all its financial success,
   still largely a one-trick pony is another angle possibly worth pursuing
   as we evaluate the long term viability of this company.

Then just let them go.  I'm sure that Reading or Natick or Athol would be
glad to see them.

   As you may guess, the City Council is singly and collectively eager to
   be thought of as "pro-business" and views this as a purely political
   equation relating purely to their own reelection 16 months hence.  We
   of the neighborhood associations view the control of developmental
   pressures and the precendent setting nature of this proposed deal with
   mortal dread.

You dread companies with nice payrolls in your community?

   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.

Then let them go.

   We very much need your assistance.  Hardcopy letters addressed to the
   Cambridge City Council but sent to me at the address below are the
   potentially best, but they must be sent immediately.  Next best are
   email messages that you would permit me to render on paper.  Telephone
   calls and private email are also very welcome.  Confidences will be
   observed when requested.

Feel free to render my comments on paper and submit them.  I bet you
don't.  Of course if you don't where will your intellectual credibility
be?

   I must have this in hand by Monday the 14th of September at noon.  I
   shall reply to all who ask with what the outcome of this episode is.

Please let me know.

   Thanks in advance.  If you want more details, ask.

As many details as you can squeeze onto the net, please.

   --dan

   formalities:
		   Dan Geer, Co-Chair
		   Cambridge Citizens for Liveable Neighborhoods

How can you have livable neighborhoods when you insist on driving your
major employers out of town?

		   P.O. Box 19
		   Cambridge, Massachusetts 02238

		   Email:     geer@world.std.com
		   Telephone: +1 617 367 2010
		   FAX:       +1 617 367 6131
		   Residence: +1 617 492 2129