Tag Cloud
Monday, March 22, 2010
Metro Chamber: Nestle plant followed rules--Council must let business go forward
by Hal Silliman, published on October 27, 2009 at 12:26PM
Storyline: Regional Prosperity
No high resolution image exists...
By Linda Cutler, Chair, Sacramento Metro Chamber Board of Directors
The discussion about the new Nestle Waters bottling facility is actually about Sacramento’s commitment to job creation and the process and rules by which businesses come to our city.
The Sacramento City Council will consider, Tuesday, Oct. 27, a measure related to this plant that will have a serious and far-reaching impact on the jobs and business climate in Sacramento.
We have a set of rules that govern how companies coming to our community must conduct business. These rules come in the form of zoning, building permits, utility fees, water use and the like. These are rules that are determined through a very open and public process and they are rules that every business must follow.
The city also has a plan that includes taking into account water needs for residential, government and industrial uses. Nearly every business, whether it is a bottled beverage company, a car wash, a restaurant or a widget manufacturer, uses water to produce its product or service. That plan includes water availability for new businesses to purchase without impacting the water already flowing to other businesses and homes.
So how does Nestle Waters’ new plant fit into this? First, the company followed all the rules, and it did not get any special treatment with respect to the rates it will pay the city for water. Nestle leased existing space from a local property owner and applied to the city for the permits and utilities needed. In short, the company has followed the process just as the many other beverage bottlers such as 7-up and Coca Cola did when they came here.
Now, some members of the Sacramento City Council are working to change those rules mid-stream by tossing aside the council’s entire review process in an effort to force a new law that would either delay or completely stop this plant from moving forward. That should be a frightening proposition to anyone interested in job creation and business development in our community. The signal it would send to other businesses is: Come to Sacramento at your own risk. The city council, at the prompting of special interests, may decide it does not want your business here even after you have leased a building, put millions into retrofitting it and begun to hire people.
And, this decision could have a major impact on the availability of capital for new projects. Why would a bank lend money to a business when the political winds could derail the project mid-way through construction?
Nestle has received more than 2,200 job applications in just in just two months. The company has already hired 11 people and has a local contractor and his crew working to retrofit the building it leased. And Nestle has invested more than $3 million into this facility already, with another $11 million to follow.
So if the city council takes action to stop this plant from moving forward, council members will have to explain not only to those 11 people and the contractor why they will be laid off, but also explain to the other 2,200 people who are looking for work why they are closing off an opportunity to bring jobs to this community.
By making the process of opening a business a political one, the city council is saying that it will pick and choose businesses and jobs depending on its political whims. This is a precedent our community simply cannot afford to set unless the council is ready to take responsibility for hanging that closed sign on the Tower Bridge.
Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.
Leave a Comment
This first paragraph says it all, who needs rules when a mob can influence the final out come? Who needs more jobs and tax dollars more than this city? Business friendly this city is NOT!
It just seems that would be the kind of simple-minded thought Nestle would depend on from a city in deficit.... This city appears to be BIG business friendly-- It does not appear to be PEOPLE friendly, small business friendly, self reliant.... All that glitters is not gold and Nestle could just be a leprechaun in search of a pot of gold in Sacramento... making far more than what we'll receive...
Reduce Big Business Control of Sacramento
by Richard Holober, Executive Director, Consumer Federation of California
April 11th, 2007
Tired of seeing consumer protection laws crushed under a ton of corporate campaign contributions?
• Big phone companies gave Sacramento politicians over $20 million since 2000. Result: every effort to protect cell phone customers from deceptive marketing and early termination fees died in the State Assembly.
• Banks, credit card companies and other financial interests gave $8.8 million to state politicians in an 18 month period, and buried legislation to protect our financial privacy.
• Chevron alone gave $3 million in California political contributions since 2004, and stopped a proposed state windfall oil profits tax.
• Health industry related interests, including HMO's, drug companies, and insurers, have given the Governor and his political causes more than $4 million since he first ran for office. Last year, he vetoed legislation that would have established affordable universal health care. These are examples of a bigger problem – domination of Sacramento by corporate interests who fund politicians of both parties.
You can read the remainder of the article if you're interested at : http://www.consumerfedofca.org/article.php?id=126
This is the same reason why no one commented on you story last week, it had lots of fluff and lots of words saying the same thing over and over again but vary few facts.
Also, making assumptions and catchy phrases is what you do best.
2) you state: "It's interesting how asking you to back up your assertions with facts becomes an attack on you" -- No it's interesting you see it that way
3) you state "This is something I'm sure you would also expect from me"-- No, I wouldn't expect it, or ask for it. I don't really value your opinion having read your often times mean-spirited remarks. Trapper, I've written articles (not the opinion pieces you see here) for different papers. I've researched information on articles I wrote and I can back up my statements with facts when and if I feel the need to. Now, you think I am a narcissist, you appear not to value my opinion, you appear to attack me and able to dish it out but not able to accept it. Unlike you, I have no desire and it is not my intention to make myself look good by making you look bad. I will not continue this discussion because I really do care about people and you are making yourself look foolish. Normally I wouldn't respond when I know a question is an attempt at en"trap"ment... LOL Normally, I would dismiss a person by now who I see as not trying to have a civil debate but attempting to caress their own ego but I see a fighter in you and I respect that if nothing else. But since I've learned (and you have not learned it yet) when to hold them, when to fold them, when to walk away and when to run-- I won't respond any further to your comment to me on this subject. I'm walking away from it, dismissing you, I won't look as silly as you are appearing to make yourself look. Have a good day and I wish you peace you seem so angry.
Why let the facts get in the way of a good story like yours Rhonda.
Can you tell me why a 4 or 5 of those business you listed above were business friendly with the City? There needs to be a pattern to prove what you’re saying, just listing business names doe's nothing to support your argument. Remember, you were the one who felt the need to say I was wrong so in response I only asked you for proof to back your claim. That's not asking for much from someone as you who claims to be out to learn and understand. BTW, your article you linked to refers to State government in Sacramento not local government in the city, there is a BIG difference.
Apparently, the company did not follow all the rules, in regard to building permits and rights to work. Nestle may have "applied to the city for the permits and utilities needed," which is not the same thing as receiving them. Has Nestle provided their copies of the documentation yet, to prove they have the right to do what they've already done, let alone continue?
Now, you are using the fact that they have rushed to get the project completed (allegedly without proper permitting) as an argument against the public process you are claiming has been followed. That crazy logic may work when the right people are behind the counter at Development Services -- until they get caught and removed.
Your comparison to "nearly every business... a restaurant or a widget manufacturer," doesn't apply here. Nestle proposes to use City water, not in production, but AS the PRODUCT. If there are not laws covering this, there should be -- if necessary an emergency order is appropriate. At the very least there should be some public review of the project, not a stealth mission to get it done before anyone notices.
The comparison to Coca Cola is a red herring also, since they've been bottling their soft drink here since 1927. Nestle snuck in the back door deal room in 2009, after being rebuffed for four years by the righteous town of McCloud, California.
The invitation to Nestle apparently came from the mayor's business team. Are they so unfamiliar with the public process in Sacramento, that they didn't realize citizens fiercely protect our rivers and water rights?