Oh
2013-12-10 16:56:05.01582+00 by Dan Lyke 3 comments
Oh, look, the billionaires took SF for $5.5 million. Surprise! (not): http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/...cisco-5-5-million-in-5050201.php
2013-12-10 16:56:05.01582+00 by Dan Lyke 3 comments
Oh, look, the billionaires took SF for $5.5 million. Surprise! (not): http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/...cisco-5-5-million-in-5050201.php
[ related topics: Bay Area ]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2013-12-10 17:52:21.861359+00 by: Larry Burton [edit history]
Okay, I'm having trouble understanding the complaint. From the article:
That spending, though, allowed the city to host an event that drew more than 700,000 people to the waterfront over roughly three months of sailing and generated at least $364 million in total economic impact, draft figures from the Bay Area Council Economic Institute reveal. That figure rises to more than $550 million if the long-planned construction of a new cruise ship terminal, which the regatta served as a catalyst to finally get built, is factored in.
If San Francisco can't recoup that $5.5 million from the $364 million in commerce that the event churned up I think SF has a problem with its tax structure.
#Comment Re: made: 2013-12-10 18:01:03.426095+00 by: Dan Lyke
Yeah, I would take numbers from "The Voice of Bay Area Business" with some skepticism.
#Comment Re: made: 2013-12-10 18:02:22.651739+00 by: Dan Lyke
Also, the article specifically mentions $6.6 million raised in taxes from the additional economic activity. So either the city's tax rate is far too low, or someone's fulla prunes.