GE's actions are not directly engineering failures or disasters - they are political and social issues. The only engineering tangential issue here is the loss of potential engineering jobs, right?
It's all a bit obvious in retrospect. Decarbonising western economies by transferring manufacturing to the developing nations (thereby increasing overall carbon emissions, but I digress) kept the politicians, elites and some voters, happy. The consequences of that sugar hit are now being felt.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
I recall in 1977 when GE was required by a court to clean up the hudson river ( from their transformer oil factory) the GE CEo told the governor of NY state ( Hugh Carey) that if NY forces GE to clean up the hudson, then GE will move all workers out of NY state. So the governor let them walk away from the pollution, and GE moved the workers out anyway.
"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick
Yes, I visited the GE facility in Schenectady and one of our people, who grew up there, told me a story as to why the GE plant was just a few building with maybe 90% of the land completely empty with nothing but dirt and undergrowth. When GE started to move people and production facilities out this left a lot of empty buildings. Anyway, GE went to the city/county and told them that they expected their property taxes to be reduced to near zero since no activity was taking place in the empty buildings, but the local authorities stated that the buildings were still an asset and they represented some level of value and therefore GE should be expected to pay taxes on the commercial value of the buildings themselves. In response, GE ordered all of the empty buildings demolished and left the land barren and said, OK tax us on the value of dirt.
Another smart CEO at work. The value of the land without the buildings was probably higher by then anyway, so demo increased their book value and resulting borrowing power.
Governments should never give money to business. They can be interest free loans as a secured creditor, payable on demand.
When it comes to property, they should be required to remediate it to the original condition. Even though the buildings are temporal, the land is not. Anyone purchasing property should require it be remediated, or alternatively be compelled to remediate it before they use it.
Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?
Perhaps, but my understanding is that since the local tax authorities were concentrating on the value of the structures, GE got what it was looking for, a reduction in their property taxes. And if they had argued that the value of the property was now higher, I would bet that GE's response was that that would only be known if and when we decided to sell it.
The economists are kicking around the idea of a bigger annual land use tax to replace one off state tax at the time of sale/purchase in NSW, Australia. It's a political/financial nightmare even though it makes sense in theory.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
That's standard; tax assessors refer to buildings as "improvements" and the large part of most property taxes, such as your house is mostly due to the house itself. But, YMMV, my house in Santa Clara County is assessed as 2/3rd value being the building, but Orange County has 45% of value being the building.
Obviously, each jurisdiction has its own agenda vis-a-vis property taxes; if the valuation were fully assessed only on the land, razing the building would do almost nothing to lower the taxes. A previous house of mine was assessed that way, only 18% of the value was assigned to the land, which is ludicrous, but it prevents someone from buying a house, razing and rebuilding, and then asking for a drop in assessment, since the newly built structure can be argued to be assessed purely on its construction costs.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
As I recall GE was taxed for the empty property, and they paid , but a court later ruled it was an illegal tax and required the county to repay the taxes- it was over $200 million USD, and the county did not have the money anymore. Not sure what happened after that fiasco.
Around 2009, the europeans became keen on renewable energy ( Engergiewende), and installed beaucoup solar collectors and wind turbines, which made redundant over 40 GWe of brand new gas fired combined cycle plants ( 50 Hz). This severely dampened the market for new gas turbines, but GE went ahead and purchased the assets of Alstom in 2016 anyway, which was hemaraging from lawsuits related to the failing dissimilar metal weld at the outlet of the HP once thru coolers ( 316H- P91 DMW). Buying Alstom was a management error as big as the recent Zillow boo-boo. Everything has a beginning, a middle and an end, and GE may be facing its end.
"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick
That was all city residential with the one lot being 3x in valuation relative to the other; admittedly, it ought to have a view premium, but they're both in the same county, so the assessment protocol should be the same and the 2nd house ought not be valued at 2x the 1st, particularly given that they're almost identical in sf, although, the 2nd is a much nicer, and more modern house.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
