HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1821  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 7:12 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,588
Are any of the buildings specifically dependent on Dechert as an anchor tenant? Which buildings again has Brandywine announced an intention to break ground on soon?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1822  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 7:13 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by eixample View Post
Dechert will never leave the city. Big law firms wouldn't do that. It's disgusting that they were ever allowed to use the tax credits and would be doubly so if they could use them again.
It certainly was not disgusting for them to use them initially and the served their purpose as far as getting the Schuylkill area going. Using them a second time to stay in the same area is much more suspect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1823  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 7:39 PM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook View Post
It certainly was not disgusting for them to use them initially and the served their purpose as far as getting the Schuylkill area going. Using them a second time to stay in the same area is much more suspect.
Agreed. I mean sure, they weren't leaving anyway, but they qualified for the tax credits and took a bit of a chance by leaving the central business district to a very unproven area when they did. If you don't want a company like Dechert to use the tax credits, word the law so they can't use them.

But totally agree that if they receive credits again 20 years later to move a block, that would be a major issue and if actually legal should be a loophole that is immediately closed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1824  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 9:05 PM
Capsule F Capsule F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 16th and green
Posts: 1,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by eixample View Post
Dechert was a law firm already in center city when they moved to the Cira Center. Big law firms like Dechert are never going to move out of the general downtown areas of the city they are located in. They didn't need an incentive to stay. I am anti-corporate tax welfare in general (not all incentives - some are appropriate, like TIFs on brownfield sites), but they in no way should be used for existing businesses that are never going to leave.
That would be true if all things were equal. Unfortunately other cesspool states use them all the time to great effect, so we now have to use them. Its half the reason firms move to Texas, or NJ locally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1825  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 9:10 PM
City Wide City Wide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown View Post
Agreed. I mean sure, they weren't leaving anyway, but they qualified for the tax credits and took a bit of a chance by leaving the central business district to a very unproven area when they did. If you don't want a company like Dechert to use the tax credits, word the law so they can't use them.

But totally agree that if they receive credits again 20 years later to move a block, that would be a major issue and if actually legal should be a loophole that is immediately closed.
After Dechert and other CC outfits used the tax credits almost 20 years ago I believe the City and the State passed or tried to pass laws to prevent that from happening in the future. The present tax credits might be based on a different set of underlaying laws, or maybe the City and State weren't successful in making a change.

Its clear that getting well established firms to move across the river wasn't the intent of law/tax credits, but I've learned its not to be expected that our lawyer/law makers will do a very good job of protecting the publics interest. I think that far and away most people, including most landlords, think using tax credits in this way is mistaken.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1826  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 9:21 PM
iheartphilly's Avatar
iheartphilly iheartphilly is offline
Philly Rising Up!
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: motherEarth
Posts: 2,466
^
Did FMC take the credit?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1827  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 9:29 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown View Post
Agreed. I mean sure, they weren't leaving anyway, but they qualified for the tax credits and took a bit of a chance by leaving the central business district to a very unproven area when they did. If you don't want a company like Dechert to use the tax credits, word the law so they can't use them.

But totally agree that if they receive credits again 20 years later to move a block, that would be a major issue and if actually legal should be a loophole that is immediately closed.
I think they actually might have left in 2001/2003. It was a different time and a different city. At this time, I think there's no chance they'll move the lawyers out to the suburbs. Good luck hiring talented junior and mid-level associates if they do. It doesn't even seem like this is a deal breaker to go to that building. It looks like this is about moving 150-200 admin over. That's what the article actually says. There are 400 employees. The article is poorly written, but it seems to me like all the lawyers and some admin will be moving to the new buildings and this is just about whether the rest of the admin will go. Morgan Lewis has had admin in different buildings. Some firms have had a lot of admin functions offsite centrally located in some cheap state. Should probably just call their bluff and see what they do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1828  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 12:43 AM
Nova08 Nova08 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsule F View Post
That would be true if all things were equal. Unfortunately other cesspool states use them all the time to great effect, so we now have to use them. Its half the reason firms move to Texas, or NJ locally.
This. You can agree or disagree with the incentives, the principle of them and the loopholes, but there are 10+ other cities and states lined up to try a poach these types of companies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1829  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 12:45 AM
iheartphilly's Avatar
iheartphilly iheartphilly is offline
Philly Rising Up!
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: motherEarth
Posts: 2,466
^^^
Right, on principle it shouldn't be allowed, but in reality and practice, it probably will...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1830  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 1:47 AM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nova08 View Post
This. You can agree or disagree with the incentives, the principle of them and the loopholes, but there are 10+ other cities and states lined up to try a poach these types of companies.
Yea I get it. It's like unilaterally disarming. You're not doing any good if you're the only city taking a stand and in the end you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

It really highlights the need for some federal laws to start to reign this in and standardize this in some way. Otherwise, this is just gonna get worse as states and municipalities compete against each other in a race to the bottom.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1831  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 12:56 PM
eixample eixample is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown View Post
It really highlights the need for some federal laws to start to reign this in and standardize this in some way. Otherwise, this is just gonna get worse as states and municipalities compete against each other in a race to the bottom.
I agree it's a difficult problem to address. One of the downsides of our federal system. The same problems arise with right to work laws and other laws weakening union rights.

The Cira Center opened in roughly 2006. It wasn't that long ago. I know it might have contributed to the rise of buildings on the other side of the river, but maybe if we hadn't gotten the Cira Center then, we'd have gotten another building on the center city side of the river. Or maybe if we used the tax cut money to lower the wage tax across the board we'd have more jobs in the city now than we do. In any case, I'm extremely suspect of these "existing companies making empty threats they are going to leave for a tax break" situations. While they might not be illegal (although in NJ some of the Norcross related relocations seemed to cross the line), they are repugnant on a moral level (to me, I know most of you disagree).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1832  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 8:00 PM
Insoluble Insoluble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 617
Before we get too mired in a "Philadelphia tax burden" discussion, let's all remember that for the past decade or so Philadelphia has been adding jobs just as fast or faster than it's been adding population:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/SMU4...de_graphs=true

Even if you narrow in on the "Professional and Business Services" sector we've been adding jobs very steadily for at least a decade now. I hope they call Dechert's bluff. Recent history has shown the city will be just fine even if they do shoot themselves in the foot and decide to leave.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:49 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.