New Haven Independent

Posted by: City Hall Watch | June 18, 2009 10:05 AM

This is a good use of a tax credit program to spur development and jobs now and in the future. I assume all the naysayers like CT Voices for Children will decry this tax credit just like they do the film tax credit program. Connecticut needs every job it can find or create.

Posted by: anon | June 18, 2009 11:01 AM

Theoretically a good idea, but the LEED standards leave much to be desired. They should have a much stronger TDM policy.

Posted by: jawbone | June 18, 2009 11:05 AM

I like the photography for this particular article. The portraits of the big wheels are candid and creepy. Very artful.

Posted by: Elm City E | June 18, 2009 1:35 PM

There is no comparison between the film credit and this credit. The film credit benefits out-of-state companies to the tune of $113 million. These Non CT-based film companies do not have a tax liability in CT and therfore sell the credits to CT companies that do have a tax liability. The film credit is costing the state $113M in lost tax revenue that it can certainly use right now. The money spent, and the temporary jobs created, by the film industry do not make up for the loss of $113 million in revenue. No matter what numbers you use; CVC or the film commission's figures. This "green" credit is aimed at companies that contruct green buildings in CT (and are spending all their money here), unlike the film credit. The credit's not 30% either. Again, unlike the film credit.

Posted by: Norton Street | June 18, 2009 1:46 PM

anon, exactly.

only a building that produces more energy than it uses is truly green. the LEED standards are a joke, I've read through it and it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. A LEED certified gold building would have people believe the building is 'good for the environment' when really its only slightly less bad than if the same building were built 10 years ago. really quite pathetic.

Posted by: Mr. Independent | June 18, 2009 2:34 PM

It is possible that the movie tax credit may be losing money but a study by CVC who have their own agenda and bias is not proof. They're not exactly an impartial party. It is also unfair to say that over 100 million in tax revenue is leaving the state because without this credit, most of these companies wouldn't even consider CT as a site for their movies and TV shows.

Posted by: anon | June 18, 2009 5:04 PM

Although 360 State is a good project in many ways and deserves credits to make it more energy efficient, I have a feeling that most of these tax credits will end up going to suburban greenfield, pave-over-the-farmland buildings in Simsbury, Durham, Orange (e.g., new UI Headquarters) and Madison which happen to be "green", or to new urban developments in Lower Fairfield County.

Meanwhile, the folks in Hartford, Bridgeport and Waterbury and New Haven get a 40% hike in CT Transit bus fares and the conversion of upper Whalley Avenue into a high-speed 4-lane road so that folks in Woodbridge can get to YNHH 2 minutes faster.

Once again, the poor, who already pay more in taxes than the rich, end up subsidizing the most wealthy people in society.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | June 18, 2009 7:13 PM

Elm City:

The film tax credit doesn't cost the state $100 million, nor does the dollars associated with it are all out of state expenditures. These are just two of the fallacies of the CT Voices "study." And by the way, who do you think will use the Leeds tax credit? An out of state company like Becker's? Why do you think he's so thrilled over this program? Because he will use the credits to offset his taxes; or he will sell them like other tax credit programs and use the proceeds to lower his costs.

Posted by: Rob | June 19, 2009 12:04 PM

Becker + Becker is a Connecticut company. Wrong county, admittedly, but still the right state.

And I'll bet that the folks working at 360 State are almost all Nutmeggers, as opposed to the people who worked on Indiana Jones and the other movies who are New Yorkers (which has a large enough film and TV industry to result in skilled workers in those fields) who just took MetroNorth up (I say MetroNorth not I-95 to make sure Anon doesn't have an aneurism).

Posted by: robn | June 21, 2009 3:04 PM

ROB

Thank you for employing the woefully underutilized term "Nutmegger".

Posted by: Elm City E | June 22, 2009 12:41 PM

You're simply wrong City Hall Watch. The film credit does in fact cost the state $100 million dollars in lost tax revenue. And even if all of the current money was spent in CT it wouldn't make up for the $100M that would have otherwise been paid in insurance taxes or corporate business taxes. I've been in state tax policy for over 20 yrs and know this tax credit very well. And no, I don't work for CVC or have any affiliation with them whatsoever. The film industry would have to spend close to $2 bilion dollars to make up the $100M in lost revenue and they're spending nowhere near that amount, no matter what numbers you use.