Privatized profits and socialized losses? Interesting concept. I think I have heard of it before. Shouldn't the city be treated like any other investor in the business and get a percentage?

Otherwise it's just business as usual and more pigs at the government (taxpayer) trough.

"Why should the city use public tax incentives to help real estate investors recoup their losses?"

Because taxpayer money shouldn't be used once again to bail out real estate investors who made poor choices in this economy. If that's the city's belief, then why don't they bail out regular home owners with that money?

I'm all about bringing more business to the city, but how can a company ask our struggling city for what amounts to corporate welfare? This is what wrangles me about so-called conservative businesspeople. They're all for fiscal conservatism until they want their share.

Incentives should come entirely from property owners and/or the real estate industry. These groups are speculators aka gamblers. First Management comes to mind.

It is not the responsibility of taxpayers to guarantee any speculator,builder,developer or the real estate industry a profit on their ventures. Again First Management,Schwada and Fritzel come to mind. Now MD Management is knocking on our tax dollar wallets.

Taxpayers have been preyed upon far too long as " defacto investors" without the dividend checks showing up in our bank accounts. It is time to cease this activity. Go directly to the banks.

Purchasing property at inflated market value was a mistake that comes with the turf. I say hit up the seller for a rebate or complete refund. Not the taxpayers!

Developers,builders,property managers,Chamber of Commerce and the real estate industry have become quite expensive budget items.

Here’s what happens: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/18/free_lunch_how_the_wealthiest_americans

http://www.uua.org/events/generalassembly/2008/commonthreads/115777.shtml

Hey City Hall clean up and fix up the walkway in front of Pinckney School please with my tax dollars.

David Cay Johnston then boggled the crowd with a blunt assertion: "We pay billions of dollars in taxes that never get to the government."

Much of the sales tax we pay at big box stores and shopping centers is diverted to the large companies that own the stores. ( a little like what MD management is asking for)

It's just one of the many swindles these chains have learned to perpetrate against city and county governments.

This is so effective that the Cabela family, which owns a chain of big-box sporting goods stores, receives 137% of its profits from taxpayer subsidies. If they couldn't work this scam, they wouldn't be in business at all."

Republican David Cay Johnston worked tax dollar issues for 20 years with the New York Times. In fact he feels most politicians are uninformed.

"Although most of the public attention has been focused on the relative merits of bringing an Olive Garden to Lawrence," ++++ Umm, no. From what I can tell, most of the attention has been toward the welfare they are asking and how much the tax payer can expect to invest in OG for the privilege of eating their nasty arseed food as a return. Oh and 70 more jobs that pay less than livable wages.

Hey! Isn;t one of the stipulations for having a contract with the city is to pay livable wage? Make that a stipulation for tax welfare and I am all for it.

My questions is, will the developer lose money if they develop the property and lease it to Olive Garden at market rates? If they just break even, isn't that better than letting the property sit vacant?

And, it is blighted so the city should make the developer do something about anyway or condemn the property.

No tax break. To give them a break is to take my money to help a private entity make a profit and it is wrong.

I have read the claim that one of Olive Garden's main profit makers is the selling of wine. That's quite clear if you've ever eaten there, the wait staff repeatedly asks you if you would like wine with your meal.

We certainly need another drinking establishment here in Lawrence to go with the enhanced DUI penalties, don't we?

Here's a give a way of Olve Garden's business model, from their official web site:

Olive Garden North American chain. Menu, wine list, and employment opportunities. www.olivegarden.com

Of course the landowner is the major beneficiary. The landowner was the major winner when Wal-Mart #2 went in. (I doubt Wal-Mart won since their parking lot over there is never very full when I drive by.)

It's robbery of the taxpayers to make them subsidize the landowner or the restaurant chain. Olive Garden will do well here, and if the landowner wants his land leased, he had better make a deal OG will accept, without taxpayers subsidizing the deal.

If OG gets a tax break here I will never, ever set foot in another one. I promised I'd never shop at Wal-Mart after that fiasco and I don't do that either.

Jeers also to S. Maceli and Doug Compton, for trying to get the city to give them a tax break to turn the Masonic building on Mass into a wedding venue.

I suppose they'll ask the city to bail them out again when this loony business idea fails.

If anyone else owned that building they would not have gotten away with that ugly plywood face on the Masonic building, on the most visible street in Lawrence.

Is anyone else baffled? Compare this editorial to last months “Benefit balance” written May 2, 2011.