I wonder how Hyde and the GCEDC will help with tax abatement and funding for this, and how many hundreds of jobs will allegedly be created or saved due their outstanding efforts.
Sometimes I think the GCEDC will fight enterprise expansion unless their involvement is included as "necessary" for the plans to be achieved - so they can include pie in the sky figures in their reports.
If it is truly covered by a federal grant, then yeah let's do it. I'm not a supporter of pork projects, but if it comes down to "It's going to be spent, it's just a matter of where" then I want it to be our pork. Local contractors may get the work and if it brings in more people to the county for whatever the reason,then that's more money spent here.
I'd rather see 4 million spent on roads, bridges and sewer repair, but if this is what we have, then that's what we got.
The terminal needs
The terminal needs replacement, but it is not to the point that if not replaced, the airport has to close.
With interest rates as low as they are for bonding (borrowing), and if the airport users have to pay all the cost, then I am for it.
I wonder how Hyde and the
I wonder how Hyde and the GCEDC will help with tax abatement and funding for this, and how many hundreds of jobs will allegedly be created or saved due their outstanding efforts.
Sometimes I think the GCEDC will fight enterprise expansion unless their involvement is included as "necessary" for the plans to be achieved - so they can include pie in the sky figures in their reports.
If it is truly covered by a
If it is truly covered by a federal grant, then yeah let's do it. I'm not a supporter of pork projects, but if it comes down to "It's going to be spent, it's just a matter of where" then I want it to be our pork. Local contractors may get the work and if it brings in more people to the county for whatever the reason,then that's more money spent here.
I'd rather see 4 million spent on roads, bridges and sewer repair, but if this is what we have, then that's what we got.