Hinkley Lighting to leave Lakewood

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

From the Clerk of Council:

Today I received by certified mail a letter from Avon Lake Assistant Law Director Sean Allan referencing the Relocation of Hinkley Lighting to Avon Lake. It is attached. I've also attached Lakewood Legislation just as an FYI if anyone was curious as to the history of Lakewood's efforts to keep Hinkley Lighting here. Note that the meeting scheduled to address Hinkley Lighting request for tax abatement from Avon Lake is December 17, 2008 (I'm not sure if that's a typo or not) at 7:30 PM.

So much for the Weidemer's commitment to Lakewood! I am so glad we spent that money to help them expand.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Ryan

I forgot to mention this last week.

Thanks for posting.

How does this affect Lakewood, and the money we "lent/gave" them. The reason seemed very weak at best.

Can we get it back?

.

[Jeff Endress]

I'm sure they'll be getting a warm welcome at the "Light Up Lakewood" celebration....

Jeff

[Mary Breiner]

Ryan,
You said you attached a letter to your post. I didn't get it. Would you try again?

Thanks,

Mary

[marklingm]

Ryan

I forgot to mention this last week.

Thanks for posting.

How does this affect Lakewood, and the money we "lent/gave" them. The reason seemed very weak at best.

Can we get it back?

.

Disclaimer: I know absolutely nothing about this matter. But, for what its worth, sometimes the answer depends on whether the corporate move amounts to a breach of an enterprise zone agreement, which often grant companies tax abatements in exchange for operating in the City.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Matt

I put my disclaimer at the bottom of every note.

From what I am hearing the could be payback options based on the amount of time not spent.

A friend of the family called and mentioned, it was 100% a size problem. 30 acres or more needed.

In the end, maybe we square and look proudly at another business that grew successful in Lakewood.


.

[Lynn Farris]

Ryan.

When we give these grants/forgivable loans to companies do we put in any kind of critieria such as if you do not continue to do business in Lakewood with a staff of at least X the loan will become payable in full or some such text. Or is all the risk on Lakewood's part?

Thanks

[dl meckes]

June 2, 2003

ORDINANCE NO. 71-03 - AN EMERGENY ORDINANCE authorizing the Mayor or her designee to enter into an agreement with Hinkley Lighting, Inc. for participation in the Lakewood Business Investment Program (BIP) of the Economic Development Fund (EDF) for a five (5) year forgivable loan in an amount of One Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($155,000.00) to assist Hinkley Lighting, Inc. with the redevelopment of 12600 Berea Road (Permanent Parcel No. 315-24-010) and 12750 Berea Road (Permanent Parcel No. 315-24-005), Lakewood Ohio. (PLACED ON 1ST READING AND REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 10/6/03, PLACED ON 2ND READING 10/20/03)

November 3, 2003

The proposed public/private partnership between Hinkley Lighting, Cuyahoga County, and the City of Lakewood, will result in a $2.5 million redevelopment project, over 80% of which will be private investment into our community by Hinkley Lighting. At this time, the City is seeking formal authorization of the following legislation:
Ordinance 70-03 - Authorizing the City to enter into a Development Agreement with Hinkley Lighting, Ordinance 71-03 - Authorizing the city to enter into an Economic Development Fund Loan Agreement with Hinkley Lighting, in an amount of $155,000, and Ordinance 72-03, adjusting appropriations for expenditures in the General Fund for the purpose of accepting and expending a $387,(722) Economic Development Grant from Cuyahoga County related to this project.
This project will not only result in the retention and expansion of a highly respected industry that is anchored on Berea Road but also the City has successfully obtained $387,000 grant from Cuyahoga County; environmental clean-up of a Brownfield property there, construction of a 40,000 plus distribution facility with associated machinery and equipment, job retention of over 70 jobs, additional employment of potentially 6-10 jobs over the next few years, retention and expansion o over $100,000/year corporate taxpayer to City of Lakewood and an Increased tax revenue for both the City and the Schools over 100% annually once the project is complete.
As such, Ordinances 70-03, 71-03, and 72-03 were all recommended at the Committee of the Whole Meeting this evening for adoption.

[Grace O'Malley]

This is what happens when you give welfare to corporations.

They make bad choices. They need to take responsibility for themselves. Government shouldn't be there with a handout.

[Dee Martinez]

This is what happens when you give welfare to corporations.

They make bad choices. They need to take responsibility for themselves. Government shouldn't be there with a handout.

And we should be doubly wary of any such deal done in an election year.

Lynn, looks like it was a 5 year deal and the 5 years are up. Smart company.

[sharon kinsella]

What a bunch of crummy opportunists. That money could have gone to something much better than subsidizing a for profit entity. And people wonder why I don't trust corporate America!

They screwed Lakewood!

[Stephen Eisel]

This is what happens when you give welfare to corporations.

They make bad choices. They need to take responsibility for themselves. Government shouldn't be there with a handout.

Google MLB subsidies for some real corporate welfare

[sharon kinsella]

Stephen -

Don't you know that's one of the reasons we all really, really love our new stadium. Yep - built on our backs.

[dl meckes]

I think it's an over simplification to say that Hinkley, the City, or the County made bad choices (aside of course, from leaving).

That parcel of land could have been empty over the past five years. Those jobs could have been lost, and that Brownfield may never had been addressed. I have no information to assess what taxes have been paid to the City over the past five years by the company or the employees.

It doesn't seem helpful to taxpayers when a business is looking for the next good deal from another community to expand into, but Hinkley has been a good neighbor. I'll miss the outlet store.

I tend to think that if the City can encourage businesses to come or stay here, it's valuable. It's probably a lot easier to build something new on open land than it is to locate to a first tier suburb.

[Dee Martinez]

I think it's an over simplification to say that Hinkley, the City, or the County made bad choices (aside of course, from leaving).

That parcel of land could have been empty over the past five years. Those jobs could have been lost, and that Brownfield may never had been addressed. I have no information to assess what taxes have been paid to the City over the past five years by the company or the employees.

It doesn't seem helpful to taxpayers when a business is looking for the next good deal from another community to expand into, but Hinkley has been a good neighbor. I'll miss the outlet store.

I tend to think that if the City can encourage businesses to come or stay here, it's valuable. It's probably a lot easier to build something new on open land than it is to locate to a first tier suburb.

I disagree Im afraid. Whether the nickles and dimes add up the bigger damage is that the public will now be very skeptical about any inducement the city might be inclined to offer a business.
That means we may pass on good deals as well as bad ones. Remember what Mark Twain said about cats and stoves.