"Michigan Gov. to Film Business: 'Drop Dead.'

[SWMAP]

Today's headline in Hollywood's Variety:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...query=Michigan

[1KielsonDrive]

Correction: Michigan Governor to everyone......Drop dead!

[Pam]

Cutting a program that was actually having a positive impact? Wow, he sure has business know how.

[rjk]

What I don't undrstand is that if this is so great for Michigan why hasn't some other state gone above Michigan's 42% production-cost tax kickback?

[Johnnny5]

Good riddance! Unfortunately, most of the remainder of Snyder's proposals are bunk!

[Richard]

What I don't undrstand is that if this is so great for Michigan why hasn't some other state gone above Michigan's 42% production-cost tax kickback?

They will ,somebody before as a push or incentive to bring the film industry into MI put the bid at 42% so now the next state will say okay we will give you 42.5 % when you are dealing will multi millions that is a chunk of change.

What was so wrong with a 53% return on the taxpayers dollar?

[Danny]

Synder will be the a one term NERD! He can't slash the film incentive program from its budget. Try cutting the pay from all republicans and other politicians. That will save some money. Legislatures, don't approve that budget! Or Hollywood would find another state and another city to make their movies.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

Don't vote for Snyder in the 2013 election.

The show must go on for Neda's sake.

[Richard]

Good riddance! Unfortunately, most of the remainder of Snyder's proposals are bunk!

Jonhnnny5 Can you explain why you feel that it is a good riddance ?

I am not calling you out but none of this is cut in stone as of yet and discussions like this need to happen so the taxpayer who is going to be affected can get a clear picture on how this impacts them.

He [[Gov)has thrown out there for public view, the items that the public stands up for will or should stay,but if the public does not know what it all means, it is hardly in the publics best interest or helping them to make an informed decision.

[BagAJellyDonuts]

What I don't understand is that if this is so great for Michigan why hasn't some other state gone above Michigan's 42% production-cost tax kickback?

When I play cards there is saying that goes like this: "To win, you've got to take chances".

We call those people losers. But at least they look good losing.

[canuck]

There is a lot of competition in that market. All states and provinces that have a thriving film industry give tax breaks. This is not a good idea for Michigan, it hinders the effort some people have made to kickstart an industry that obviously was on its way to providing opportunities for lots of craftspeople.
There is a sense that it is being treated as a frivolous business, but I think it also is a mistake because would be Michigan film entrepreneurs could develop alongside the majors' studio input.
I hope for Detroit that this doesnt happen.

[jtf1972]

I want to see what the effects of this budget will be long-term. All the incentives were just band aids to cover up an extremely flawed system. Don't think it was flawed? Look around.

[surenowinlife]

This will certainly hurt all the shops that provide props, not to mention all the peeps who work in the industry.

[Richard]

I want to see what the effects of this budget will be long-term. All the incentives were just band aids to cover up an extremely flawed system. Don't think it was flawed? Look around.

Yes and no the question is how far should a city or state go when offering incentives ,which are used to promote growth jobs and building restoration,some have short term impacts and others have long term. You still need to look at the future.

Take a step back 5 years,how many buildings in Detroit were vacant? Now 5 years later how many have been rehabilitated ? Detroit city center and Woodward ave is moving forward as a direct result of incentives,it was expensive to the tax payer short term,but look at the difference 5 years later. Is it noticeable? and as a taxpayer do you think it was worth it?

Flawed yes extremely, in some cases abused,in his proposal he is also setting aside funds to still provide some help but and unless I am reading it all wrong ,correct me if I am wrong,but there seems to be a wanted shift of decision making when it comes to the distribution of incentives to come from Lansing only.One would hope not ,but like I said I may be reading into something that is not there.I do hope that is the case.

[Johnnny5]

Jonhnnny5 Can you explain why you feel that it is a good riddance ?

I am not calling you out but none of this is cut in stone as of yet and discussions like this need to happen so the taxpayer who is going to be affected can get a clear picture on how this impacts them.

He [[Gov)has thrown out there for public view, the items that the public stands up for will or should stay,but if the public does not know what it all means, it is hardly in the publics best interest or helping them to make an informed decision.

In my opinion the film industry is just a fair weather friend [[Or is golddigger a better term?). The ONLY reason they are here is because the state is massively subsidizing their projects, and the fact that the ending of those subsidies means the loss of the industry is proof of that.
I'll temper my argument by saying that I'm not in favor of any tax credits or public funding for any for profit industries, but to subsidize an industry that is completely mobile is a complete waste of our tax dollars.

The climate in Michigan would mean that any jobs in the industry would be at best a seasonal activity with limited production during inclement weather [[There's a reason the industry thrives in sunny California). Also with most large tax subsidies/credits there's usually a long term agreement for instate jobs, or long term capital improvement. With these credits there is none! It's cash your check and take nearly half back to California, and that's exactly what has been happening.

I know someone is going to counter with the "Film studios, film schools" argument, but of all those proposed developments that were floating around I have yet to hear of any successes. The Allen Park school ended up being a near total failure [[If not fraudulent) and the rest are either stalled, cash grabs, imaginary or simply political hot air.

Of course none of this matters. Many people think the program is a complete success because they get to see George Clooney!

[lilpup]

The ONLY reason they are here is because the state is massively subsidizing their projects, and the fact that the ending of those subsidies means the loss of the industry is proof of that.
I'll temper my argument by saying that I'm not in favor of any tax credits or public funding for any for profit industries, but to subsidize an industry that is completely mobile is a complete waste of our tax dollars.

The climate in Michigan would mean that any jobs in the industry would be at best a seasonal activity with limited production during inclement weather [[There's a reason the industry thrives in sunny California). Also with most large tax subsidies/credits there's usually a long term agreement for instate jobs, or long term capitol improvement. With these credits there is none! It's cash your check and take nearly half back to California, and that's exactly what has been happening.

And what's wrong with that if it benefits both the film industry AND Michigan taxpayers? If you don't get people in jobs you're still going to be paying for them through state aid programs! At least the film industry is bringing private money to spend in the state.

[Johnnny5]

Because it does not benefit Michigan tax payers. It's costing Michigan more than it's bringing in, and the money could be be better spent on worthwhile programs [[Like the Pure Michigan Campaign). For the most part the benefits Michigan businesses receive from the film credits are limited to the production process. The actors, film crews and support staff leave and the benefits are gone! Programs such as Pure Michigan increase the visibility of our resources and support struggling businesses that we already have. With any luck the first trip to Michigan for a visiting tourist will not be his/her last. We'll reap the benefits of one tax dollar spent many times over for years to come, not get back 53 cents on the dollar.

[lilpup]

It's costing Michigan more than it's bringing in

uh, no, that's not even mathematically possible

the money could be be better spent on worthwhile programs

ah, there's the truth - OTHER interests want the $$

[Richard]

Excellent Jonnny5 Thank you

So we have say for instance 3 broad categories of where incentive dollars are spent

1: lets call that a Transit incentive which would be an incentive to entice a outside venture to come into MI ,They would be considered a high term taxpayer investment for a short term gain,if you take the how well has that worked up to this point approach. Then the state needs to provide the real numbers to the general public or include them in news releases.

2: The incentives that are used directly towards the rebuilding aspect,think about the large projects recently under way or have been done with historical properties downtown,those are already structured on a the numbers have to match basis,they are long term payoffs,and the jobs they provide really do not affect the city as a whole,but what they do provide is an important message of a city moving forward which intern attracts other investments. And helps to preserve a cities history that defined them in the first place.

3: Incentives used to lure business into the city to provide jobs,this is already structured according to how many jobs are you providing and at what pay-scale.So a company that wishes to provide good paying manufacturing jobs will be looked at more so then a fast food chain who would provide more jobs but at a less pay.

You are providing a incentive for a business to locate there so the numbers or rate of return back to the taxpayer should match.It is not about why should we help a for profit company in business because if you say that then there are many other cities and states in this country that would be glad to have them,that is the way it is so that is not a factor at all.

The [[Gov) has proposed a $25,000,000 cap on these incentives and saying that it is no longer an incentive it is a direct grant ,so heres your bank when it is empty thats it,short term savings long term loss . So what happens to the company that comes in August when that fund is dry.

As a grant ie one time payment what happens if two years down the road the company moves south that money is gone,incentives are structured over time. But because the Gov was a past venture capital fund owner/manger maybe he is on to something . There needs to be some more clarity as to what is going on.

[Motor City Sam]

I'm surprised to see people say in this thread that the flim incentive doesn't help Michigan taxpayers. I'm not in the industry, but I know at least three people who are working pretty steadily on film and TV projects for the past year and a half or so, either as paid extras or in featured roles. They go from project to project, working on "Red Dawn" for awhile, then working on "Real Steel", then moving to Detroit 187. They aren't full time jobs by definitiion, I guess, but they end up earning a steady paycheck and are able to pay their bills instead of collecting unemployment and other state aid.

Also, a friend of mine owns a boxing and martial arts supply store. A project filming in the area needed equipment for some boxing scenes, and purchased everything they needed from my buddy's store. He made enough money from their first visit to cover all his store expenses for the month. And they came back twice more to make smaller purchases.

Judging the success of this project by the number of "full time jobs" it creates actually ignores much of the benefits enjoyed by Michigan citizens and businesses. Besides, it's one of the few examples of growing industry in the state. It's grown every year since it's been implemented. Should we pull the plug on it so quickly, while it's still in growth mode?

Some of you folks would have given up on the auto industry in the first few years of it's existence because it took a while to get going.

[canuck]

Well the film industry is a fairweather friend to folks who work in it, and they have to make do. There are those who get kicked out of jobs at Chrysler and hired on again. The seasonal thing exists in New York and Chicago and other places too. I work in film and not only did I get to see George Clooney, but I got to work for the guy, and some of the exterior shooting we did was in brutally cold weather. Over the years, cities have been using the tax rebates on salaries because the dividends across the economy were pretty good, hotels, bars, restaurants. There is a promotional element that is non-negligible for big cities and regions, and you are mistaken about film crews, because there are experienced local crews that manage most of the work on a movie, at least here in Montreal. A colleague of mine is up for an Oscar for special FX makeup on Barney's Version. His name is Adrien Morot. So it is not all Hollywood product, Check out Detroit's IATSE local 38 website and notice the number of crafts represented. I am IATSE 514 member.

[Goose]

Of course none of this matters. Many people think the program is a complete success because they get to see George Clooney!

it's also a very "liberal" industry, thus the popularity here.......

[lilpup]

The whole idea of a big business not chasing the money in today's globalized market is a crock. Why do you think Ontario now builds more cars than Michigan and why the German automakers have moved in down south instead of staying in Germany? Or why BASF is moving its paint lab from Southfield to India? Or why Goodyear is trying to move its R&D out of Akron to India?

[Thames]

I also have three friends working with the film industry. Two are drivers. I'd rather see them working, then on unemployment.

You need local drivers. We know the roads and are familiar with the area.

I love hearing the stories they tell about the "stars". Hugh Jackman is a down to earth guy. He goes in to get his own Starbucks and comes to your house for bbq's! Others expect everyone to do everything for him/her. Snotty little spoiled brats.Clint Eastwood, I'm told, is a really nice person too. My friend had lunch with him and he was so star struck, all he did for the first 5 minutes was shove rice in his mouth. Finally, Mr. Eastwood broke the ice, and they both enjoyed their lunch.

A new film studio opened in Livonia, just this past week or so. I hope it survives, despite all the uncertainty.Not sure how many people are employed.
http://detnews.com/article/20110208/...ichigan-talent

I also read about a travel agent who said her business was booming, so much so, that she hired 2 people. Sorry no link. [[too lazy to look it up)

[Richard]

The whole idea of a big business not chasing the money in today's globalized market is a crock. Why do you think Ontario now builds more cars than Michigan and why the German automakers have moved in down south instead of staying in Germany? Or why BASF is moving its paint lab from Southfield to India? Or why Goodyear is trying to move its R&D out of Akron to India?

Correct ... But what is also happening over there and in China all of those workers that are getting paid pennies are starting to stand up and say hey,and loudly, so that boat will only sail for so long ..

[Pam]

it's also a very "liberal" industry, thus the popularity here.......

No. Read the thread again. It's popular because it's bringing jobs, money and positive publicity to our state. I don't care about seeing George Clooney either. I support it because one of my family members got a job on a movie.