4,730 jobs lost as Detroit 187 & other films leave state thanks to Rick

[lilpup]

Word is that the Guv. wants to encourage wine-making here. Why should the unemployed and under-employed get hammered on CA wines?

Are you unfamiliar with Michigan's existing wine industry?

[rjlj]

Sorry if this was mentioned but does this make sense?

March 10th, 2011, Governor Rick Snyder signs bill expanding Pure Michigan ads, signing a bill into law that drops an additional $10 million into the popular Pure Michigan advertising campaign. For every dollar invested in Pure Michigan, the state receives a $3.29 return from tourism, said Patricia Mooradian, state Travel commissioner.
But according to Ernst & Young for convention and visitors bureaus in Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, Traverse City and Detroit calculated that film production activity boosted 2010 Michigan economic output by $503 million, roughly $6 for every $1 in credit earned.
Michigan's film industry has been bracing for cuts, and under Gov. Rick Snyder's budget, the state would eliminate film industry tax credits altogether. The credits would be replaced with a $25 million grant from the 21st Century Jobs Fund.
So where is the common sense?
http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/Study_Film_Credits_More_Profitable_Than_Pure_Michi gan_116870268.html

[jerrytimes]

I don't understand that how people here think that the film industry was actually helping. Sure, they spend money here, and there were some jobs created, but when a state spends millions and millions of dollars and it doesn't bring in a return it just doesn't make sense. First off, there are not over 4000 full time jobs being lost. They are mostly all part time jobs. The couple of people that I know that have done some work in the industry hardly made anything. I have no reason for the film industry to stay, because the second the handouts were going to be removed, they all want to just take off. They couldn't give a sh!t about Detroit or Michigan unless we paid them.

[Thruster315]

I don't understand that how people here think that the film industry was actually helping. Sure, they spend money here, and there were some jobs created, but when a state spends millions and millions of dollars and it doesn't bring in a return it just doesn't make sense. First off, there are not over 4000 full time jobs being lost. They are mostly all part time jobs. The couple of people that I know that have done some work in the industry hardly made anything. I have no reason for the film industry to stay, because the second the handouts were going to be removed, they all want to just take off. They couldn't give a sh!t about Detroit or Michigan unless we paid them.

I'm not so sure you understand the transient lifestyle that the entertainment industry works. And it's not just about here in Michigan but as a whole. Once a movie or a production is done, nearly ALL of that production is laid off. Sound horrible? No, if you've got some tenacity and some skill to find the next job. That speaks to the talent level and the agility of the industry to move about.

I know of plenty of people in the television & film industry here in Michigan prior to the Film Incentives came to town [[Detroit only lagged behind LA & New York for TV commercial production) and while they were never employed full time for anyone for more than a few months, they've been constantly employed. They would finish wrapping up one gig and move on to another job. They'd get those constant gigs because they were good at what they did. The word of mouth from within the industry kept them employed. It wasn't a closed industry either- it would welcome newcomers to the circuit if they were professional, prompt and had some tenacity. People in this industry like working with other professionals.

Show some of these out-of-towners some of the talent that we have in this state. Give them amazing vistas to shoot; Lord knows we've got scenery to shoot big city, urban blight, beaches, farm land, small town, upscale communities, and stages that can accommodate just about anything these movie makers desire.

Sure, I guess we can always just resort back to doing small time commercial productions here but from what I see, the Incentives were to show off what we can do here. Give the movie makers a reason, any reason to come to a place they would've never even thought about coming to and shoot their movies. Let them fall in love with the state like we've almost grown accustomed to. Let our surroundings and our professional people help in a growing industry. I know it's a horrible analogy but let's give out some "samples" of what we can offer here, get them hooked and maybe then they'll come back for more.

I don't think too many of the people here who support the Film Incentive think that we can sustain the 30-42% incentive forever, but to yank it away after three years is awfully quick. Let's give it a little longer to set in- maybe five years total and then start to reign it in. Let's give this bi-partisan initiative a fighting chance to lure a new industry to the state. Lord knows we've relied far too heavily on the auto manufacturers to support us.

[Wesley Mouch]

$100 million is a lot of money.

And I'm against tax credits in general.

But the question is does it cost more to pay $100m in tax credits or in unemployment compensation. If we are going to pay the $100m anyway, let's have fun.

[rjlj]

Movie 'The Dark Knight Rises' will film in Pittsburgh

Some notable quotes from the article:

"Pittsburgh is a beautiful city," the London-born director said in a statement. "We have been able to find everything we were looking for here, and I am excited to spend the summer in Pittsburgh with our final installment of Batman."

"We are thrilled to be welcoming the Batman film to Pittsburgh, and eager for the economic impact that our city will experience," the mayor said in a statement. "This is another example of the growing film industry in our community, and we will be rolling out the red carpet for them."


""A franchise as prestigious as Batman opens our region up to an entirely new audience as filmmakers and studio executives experience Southwestern Pennsylvania," Ms. Keezer said."



http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11095/1137149-348.stm

[fryar]

These tax credits for the film industry would not have been my idea, and it sounds like they were "fashionable" for a while. But having instituted them to begin with, the industry should be given a chance to really take root. To just cut them now seems pretty stupid.

That said, GSGeorge, I wouldn't get my hopes up about local work being plentiful under these conditions. I hope you've been renting and didn't buy. Good luck, and maybe we'll see you return to Detroit somewhere down the line.

My surely highly controversial opinion is probably more appropriately expressed in the thread bemoaning the closing of the Troy library than in this thread [[sorry, GSGeorge), but these idiotic attempts to pander to the tea party have gone more than far enough for my liking. Somebody increase tax revenues, already.

[ColonelMack]

From an article in LA Times:

a report by the [[Michigan state) Senate Fiscal Agency, which evaluates state programs, has thrown cold water on the upbeat picture — renewing debate about whether film incentives are worth the cost to taxpayers. The report found that the subsidies — which work like a rebate toward qualified production expenses — generate roughly 10 cents in new tax revenue for each dollar paid to filmmakers. In 2009, for example, the state spent $68.7 million on film tax credits but generated only $7.5 million in tax revenue from the film production activity, leaving the state with a net loss of $61.2 million.
The study concluded that nearly half of the expenditures that qualified for the state's media production credit did not affect the Michigan economy, mainly because they were made to individuals and firms outside of the state. In addition, the state agency disputed as unverifiable job creation claims touted by the state's Film Office.

[Goose]

From an article in LA Times:
but generated $7.5 million in tax revenue from the film production activity,

so you are saying we are losing this money [[as seen from the liberal perspective).......

[dantroit]

Now that the fun of watching the movies being made and spotting actors around the area is over, we can all sit and watch the corn grow as the Urban farmers take over.

love it . . .

[ColonelMack]

Any pragmatic look at the facts indicates we are losing a lot of money. The most common mistake no this board and other discussions about the incentives is that 1 dollar/6 dollar thing. Many wrongly say for every one dollar we spent we get back six dollars. That is wrong, it is for every one dollar we spend we get six dollars of exconomi activity.. in other words the one dollar kind of circulates around six times. At 6 percent sales tax, we get back 36 cents for every dollar of MY [[and every other taxpayer) dollar spent.

It is not really 4000 + jobs. that many jobs were created, but they last only 3 months each, so it is more like just over a thousand jobs in a statistical sense [[each "3 month" job is actually a quarter of a job, since you are only working a quarter of the year.)

It is just not a good use of taxpayer money. It is essentially paying so we can delude ourselves into thinking we are cool. We must be cool, right, George Clooney is hanging around us. Sorry, it is nothing more than giving your twinkee to the cool kid in elementary scool so he sits by you in lunch. It's a very bad deal when you look at the actual job making reality of this.

[bartock]

Sorry if this was mentioned but does this make sense?

March 10th, 2011, Governor Rick Snyder signs bill expanding Pure Michigan ads, signing a bill into law that drops an additional $10 million into the popular Pure Michigan advertising campaign. For every dollar invested in Pure Michigan, the state receives a $3.29 return from tourism, said Patricia Mooradian, state Travel commissioner.
But according to Ernst & Young for convention and visitors bureaus in Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, Traverse City and Detroit calculated that film production activity boosted 2010 Michigan economic output by $503 million, roughly $6 for every $1 in credit earned.
Michigan's film industry has been bracing for cuts, and under Gov. Rick Snyder's budget, the state would eliminate film industry tax credits altogether. The credits would be replaced with a $25 million grant from the 21st Century Jobs Fund.
So where is the common sense?
http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/S...116870268.html

Yes, It does.

Note "the state receives" versus "economic output." See C-Mack's comments above, also. That 6 to 1 thing is actually, at best, a 3 to 1 loss in terms of tax dollars spent and money "the state receives." Pure Michigan has proven to be a 3 to 1 gain on taxpayer investment given the return "the state receives."

[DetBill]

Unfortunately they are laughing their heads at us in Cleveland. I am there lately almost every week and have to endure the constant comments about our backwardness, To make matters worse their republican governor and local governments are pledging to increase incentives to expand this " wonderful newly inherited industry, Our hotels are just ecstatic ." They are being extremely agressive in luring the movies away from us in a couple of weeks time already. We have tons of new energy living in Detroit and close suburbs that we did not even have living close even a couple of years ago and Rick and the gang could care less. Many in Michigan feel the same way, They have no interest in anything that doesnt yield huge immediate profits and doesnt stare you in the face with immediate dollars. Id like to know what industry today does that ?? I believe its call stupid. These films are creating jobs, especially in areas we dont have traditionally , keeping many hotels booked, small businesses to cater to them floating and positive publicity we couldnt possibly afford. Dont be surprised to see some well known new hotels in downtown Detroit fold in the near future with all the awful ramifications that will generate from it. Book Cadillac alone gets over 1 million a year in addtional booked night from the industry, Take it away and well, you know the rest. When it does , all the naysayers will say,," Dahh what happened ??"" I saw on TV the other night here a Republican rep saying, " folks, why should we write George Clooney a check for $800,000 when we could be employing Michiganders instead." Was that guy on drugs ?,, we do not write him a check in that manner and he completely ignored the fact that with Clooney here working on a movie we have just employed thousands of michiganers both directly and indirectly, but, then again our Rep appeals to the stupid many of our state who have no ability to analyse the greater picture.
A well connected friend of mine recently and correctly stated. " Snyder knows he can appeal to all the gullible in the state and is doing so brilliantly.
Caps are fine but they have to be reasonable and well implemented. Something Rich and his crew have no concept of.. Its just cut and cut to keep all the rednecks happy. Well I guess they got what they voted for. Lets build another walmart in the middle of the state, pay em minimum wage with few benefits and they will all vote republican again,, Keep the stupid happy...

[markd]

I don't support reducing the film tax incentives to $25 million but I am hopeful that he suggested such a low number to meet in the middle for a compromise. Hopefully, he isn't stubborn and inflexible as it could end up being a good investment for Michigan to see where the industry goes. We've given state tax benefits to the manufacturing [[auto) industry for long enough and that has gotten us nowhere. I'm all for encouraging industries that are not so reliant on the well being of three companies under the influence of the unions.

[rjlj]

Yes, It does.

Note "the state receives" versus "economic output." See C-Mack's comments above, also. That 6 to 1 thing is actually, at best, a 3 to 1 loss in terms of tax dollars spent and money "the state receives." Pure Michigan has proven to be a 3 to 1 gain on taxpayer investment given the return "the state receives."

You are blind. Please explain in with facts and detail how the state receives monies from the Pure Michigan campaign? I am all for the Pure Michigan ads but money spent by the number people who come here for a weekend or a week at vacation does not equate to the amount of people who spend working [[who pay state taxes) and spend weeks at a time in Michigan spending money lodging here, eating here, spending money while being here. Not to mention, the publicity the state receives and the influx of people wanting to break into the industry,

Where are your facts and numbers? Your current numbers don't add up.

[bartock]

You are blind. Please explain in with facts and detail how the state receives monies from the Pure Michigan campaign? I am all for the Pure Michigan ads but money spent by the number people who come here for a weekend or a week at vacation does not equate to the amount of people who spend working [[who pay state taxes) and spend weeks at a time in Michigan spending money lodging here, eating here, spending money while being here. Not to mention, the publicity the state receives and the influx of people wanting to break into the industry,

Where are your facts and numbers? Your current numbers don't add up.

You've got to be kidding. This has been beaten to death. Rather than insult you the way you did me I'll just advise you to read everything already said on this topic and suggest you get off the company line

[Mikeg]

You dead-enders keep trotting out Pure Michigan as an example of why Michigan should also provide unlimited numbers of 30% or 35% tax credits to the film industry. Let me compare and contrast the two so that you can see why that is like comparing apples to oranges.

Pure Michigan's budget will be $25 million for 2011, the same amount as the Governor is proposing for grants in 2011 to the film industry from the 21st Century Jobs Fund.

Compare that against the late and lamented Michigan Film Production Credit program, which had no cap on the total amount of tax credits that could be paid in a given budget year. Between April 2008 and Dec. 2010, the state of Michigan approved film credits totaling more than $360 million, which averages out to about $131 million per year or more than five times the amount of Pure Michigan's annual budget.

Now let's get to the heart of the objections to comparing Michigan's Film Production Credit program to that of Pure Michigan. It isn't only the difference in magnitude of taxpayer funds involved [[the 40/42% film production credits were the most generous in the nation percentage-wise and there was no annual cap on treasury outlays) or whether one stimulates more private business activity than the other, it is the fact that there is a fundamental difference in the way that taxpayer funds are spent under Pure Michigan versus the Michigan Film Production Credit programs.

If Pure Michigan spent its budget money in the same manner as the Michigan Film Office's Film Production Credit program, the treasury would have been writing checks to individual tourists who had visited Michigan and who could show receipts for their spending here. The result would have Michigan taxpayers directly subsidizing individual's vacations by reducing their out-of-pocket costs. But that's not how Pure Michigan operates. The Travel Michigan/Pure Michigan arm of the MEDC advertises and provides information to prospective visitors to this state. Their budget money is spent on behalf of all Michigan businesses who might benefit from increased tourism and taxpayers who will benefit from any boost it provides to state revenues.

Similarly, the State of Michigan Film Office has for years also spent taxpayer money to promote the state as an attractive place to make films, coordinate filming permits, etc. This kind of budget spending is also on behalf of all Michigan businesses and taxpayers who can benefit from increased film-making here in Michigan.

This kind of Pure Michigan and Michigan Film Office budgeted spending provides an indirect subsidy to private businesses, without favoring one over another.

However, when the Michigan Film Office approved a Film Production Credit, it resulted in taxpayer money being used to subsidize [[reduce) the cost of those portions of a film that were produced in Michigan. In other words, unlike with Pure Michigan, a private business was selected and given a direct subsidy using public tax dollars.

I have to laugh when I read comments from those who are critical of the quality of some films produced here but still love the fact that there are more of them and therefore support an uncapped 30-35% film credit.

Investing in film-making has always been a high-risk proposition with a low probability of any return on that investment. Therefore, back when when film producers had no choice but to raise funds from private investors, they found themselves competing for a limited pool of money that went to only the best scripts, causing the lesser ones to never get made. However, when the government is offering to carry 40% of the risk on any film that meets the low threshold of simply being made in Michigan, any kind of crap can - and does - get produced.

Tax something and the taxpayer's creative juices start flowing to find new alternatives such that the state will get less of it to tax over time. Subsidize something and the creative juices start flowing only enough to make sure their product qualifies, resulting in more of the same for the state to subsidize.

[swingline]

Yes, It does.

Note "the state receives" versus "economic output." See C-Mack's comments above, also. That 6 to 1 thing is actually, at best, a 3 to 1 loss in terms of tax dollars spent and money "the state receives." Pure Michigan has proven to be a 3 to 1 gain on taxpayer investment given the return "the state receives."

Not so fast.

The film credit program certainly deserves hard scrutiny so that the taxpayers can determine whether it's money well spent. And the scrutiny needs to involve more than a simpleton exercise of trying to measure whether the state can get its money back through increased sales tax collections. Yes the jury is still out.

But the picture [[and the financial return) is not necessarily that clear with the vaunted Pure Michigan campaign either. There has been completely inadequate transparency when it comes to the numbers being touted by the Travel Michigan folks at the MEDC. Their numbers come from a "study" prepared by Longwoods International of Toronto. This outfit does advertising research in several industries including travel. It has been hired by dozens of states to validate the effectiveness of their travel advertising which it apparently does without exception. It seems that their detailed study for Michigan has been kept pretty well under wraps and not produced for peer review. We mere citizens get conclusory fluff like like this one and a half page summary: http://ref.michigan.org/cm/attach/05...on%20final.pdf The liberal bashers at the Mackinac Center along with some Lansing legislators question the numbers as well. http://www.mackinac.org/14703

It's very complicated and difficult to measure the effectiveness of these programs. It's not just direct dollars and cents either. There are intangible factors that affect important quality of life measurements to take into account as well. I think that it's too soon to pull the plug on the film program. Scale it back a little but don't gut it. As for Pure Michigan, not sure of the real fiscal impact, but it's hard to believe that it's not a net positive.

[ColonelMack]

what "quality of life" issues?

Are you saying having George Clooney grace our area with his presence somehow make lives better than spending that money fixing roads instead?

That is the problem with this argument, folks wont look past the juvenile notion that having movie stars here somehow validates us.. [[I will call it the Mitch Album Effect)

I dont need some Coke addled [[not George, he appears straight, but all the hanger-onners) freaks coming to my town to feel good about where I live. I get that from great schools, and great neighbors.

Seriously, if you want to improve our quality of life you people who want to hang around movie sets and get paid to bring coffee to stars as your next big break shoudl go to Nursing school, then get a great paying job with bennies, and raise a fine, hard working family! Oh, wait, that would take some discipline and hard work, it wouldnt be "being one of MIchigans brightest and most creative" class that we so urgently need to keep. That is BS. GIve me a hard working Asian kid who is destined to become an engineer or Doctor over a Mid-town hipster to hang our future economic success on!

[canuck]

what "quality of life" issues?

Are you saying having George Clooney grace our area with his presence somehow make lives better than spending that money fixing roads instead?

That is the problem with this argument, folks wont look past the juvenile notion that having movie stars here somehow validates us.. [[I will call it the Mitch Album Effect)

I dont need some Coke addled [[not George, he appears straight, but all the hanger-onners) freaks coming to my town to feel good about where I live. I get that from great schools, and great neighbors.

Seriously, if you want to improve our quality of life you people who want to hang around movie sets and get paid to bring coffee to stars as your next big break shoudl go to Nursing school, then get a great paying job with bennies, and raise a fine, hard working family! Oh, wait, that would take some discipline and hard work, it wouldnt be "being one of MIchigans brightest and most creative" class that we so urgently need to keep. That is BS. GIve me a hard working Asian kid who is destined to become an engineer or Doctor over a Mid-town hipster to hang our future economic success on!

It takes all kinds ColonelMack sir. You can have so-so engineers and brilliant film production designer; a hipster can also be someone who does something more than wear flared pants and a goatee for chrissakes, c'mon, get out from under that rock...

[ColonelMack]

anyone who is brilliant in the craft should absolutely pursue that as a career. All I ask is that you do so without a subsidy from my tax dollars. Is that too much to ask?

[canuck]

Well if I think about how much money was spent on subsidizing GM or military equipment in the US and Canada to the tunes of many hundreds of dollars, I think I will buy you and the hipster a beer so we can call it quits. We will both agree that the weapons or the car industry are a semi-permanent source of employment anyways.

[ColonelMack]

all that is completely irrelevant to this issue though. Love the bailouts.. or not.. it has nothing to do with this issue.

This comes down to this: Tax dollars being spent to make jobs to try to lift the state's economy. Is this a good place to be putting the money.

My two cents is Hell no-- 20k+ per 50k-a-year job is ridiculous. And to make matters worse, they are jobs that are transient, and disappear the second the state movie welfare dries up. Now what if we put those dollars into machine shops in Macomb County. Good paying, long term blue collar jobs that will be [[more or less) permenant. That would have a much more positive effect on our state's economy.

[HazenPingree]

GSGeorge, I support you. While I think that concern over the credit is arguably rational on a state level, I think that Detroiters who oppose the credit are decidedly irrational. Whether or not you agree with the way the incentive is structured, it has been wholeheartedly positive for the city, directing the vast majority of the state's film production to Detroit and the Metro Detroit area. This in turn has meant a tangible secondary economic impact, as well as the attraction of hundreds upon hundreds of high-skill creative jobs to the area.

[canuck]

all that is completely irrelevant to this issue though. Love the bailouts.. or not.. it has nothing to do with this issue.

This comes down to this: Tax dollars being spent to make jobs to try to lift the state's economy. Is this a good place to be putting the money.

My two cents is Hell no-- 20k+ per 50k-a-year job is ridiculous. And to make matters worse, they are jobs that are transient, and disappear the second the state movie welfare dries up. Now what if we put those dollars into machine shops in Macomb County. Good paying, long term blue collar jobs that will be [[more or less) permenant. That would have a much more positive effect on our state's economy.

I know how you feel about machines ColonelMack, and I have the same longing for solid, no nonsense type industry; almost everybody wants that. If we looked closely enough at the variety of incentives and tax rebates in industry at large plus the subsidies to high tech from our governments; it would be an equal playing field with film production. States and provinces not to mention east european countries have been competing for Hollywood business because they create freelance jobs that sometimes dovetail the job opportunities in local productions. There is opportunity for Detroit to regain some of the film production it used to have when film advertizing well as photography studios were top in the US. My claim is that the kids coming out of Wayne State theatre school should be able to stay in Michigan and contribute to an environment that doesnt strictly value traditional industry. Fostering this development will help forge the city and state's new identity and give some screentime to all the untold stories awaiting to be told in Detroit.

It may be hard to believe it is possible to compete with Hollywood product but independant films now have festivals to promote a greater distribution potential and sometimes producers will buy a shoestring budgeted film and propel it to great success. So the many tax paying craftspeople involved in making movies need to remain in Detroit and gather up enough strength to generate a local industry.