Companies don't do that unless people turn up randomly, start making crazy claims ("take me to Steve Jobs! I'm here regarding traffic congestion!") and start acting like an ass when they don't get what they want.
Just pure speculation on my part.
Most people, even mayors, make appointments when they formally visit another organization in an official capacity. They don't just walk in and expect to be seen.
Which means he'd have to have a warrant. If an Officer was "just investigating", they have to be invited or have a court order to get onto private property.
In America anyway.
Otherwise, yes, a police investigator needs permission, or a warrant, to go onto the Apple campus and ask questions or look around.
I'd be rightly ticked off if someone did that to me, and I'm not one of the worlds richest and most secretive companies.
> Getting local politicians to battle Apple is hard, Chang said. He recently proposed that Apple – which is building a massive new campus its own employees nicknamed the Death Star, or more favorably, The Spaceship – should give $100m to improve city infrastructure. To move on the proposal, Chang only needed to get a single vote ‘yes’ among the three other eligible council members. He failed to get that vote.
What's his logic for this special Tax on Apple? It sounds like this guy is an anti-corporate loon, drinking too much Sanders juice or something. Sounds like the other council members are more rational.
A huge number of towns in America are basically run by one or two corporations. Cupertino is not unique in the slightest, aside from the fact that Apple is just a larger company.
But it really doesn't matter if you "only" have a $1 Billion market cap company headquartered in your small 30,000 town, or a $600 Billion behemoth like Apple. Its all basically the same: all your taxes are basically going to come from only one source.
------------
In either cases, you can run the town independently of the corporation. True: a lot of the corporation's workers will be your citizens, but keep the issues separate and keep things fair... and you ought to get what you need done.
The German city of Wolfsburg, and the state of Niedersachsen have done it with VW.
The solution: You just buy a large amount of shares of the companies that are started in your city. Municipalities get a far larger share of the profits directly, politicians have an incentive to ensure companies are profitable, and companies can’t avoid paying for the infrastructure they use.
Don't have an American bias when people share their cultures from around the world.
There are a lot of governments, and all of our experience with the American government basically means jack diddly with respect to the German government.
With that said, I do share your concerns, but I'm not going to make claims about a government I never visited and never worked with in my life that's roughly 10 time-zones away.
The German government, for example, owns several large banking groups, which act like any normal banking group – but their dividends directly go into the tax budget. (And they have to give loans at lower interest rates to the governments).
Normal bankers, in normal environment, and they’d probably never notice it was government owned.
The German government has done it for several decades, with great success – you should take a look at their model.
In all other cases, cities investing in companies are either going to take on a VC role which I'd very much argue that they are not capable of performing well (and introduces so much room for corruption) or will be investing in mature companies and likely without the balance sheet to make a dent as far as voting power goes. I don't see how either leads to anything productive.
Property taxes are based on the value of (and in some cases the type of use of) local property, that's reasonable because the costs incurred by the local government to build and maintain infrastructure is related to their use of land.
His argument seems to be that because Apple makes a lot of money they should also pay more taxes, luckily for him that's the way the system works! Apple also pays corporation tax on their income.
Unfortunately for him that tax is federal and not local so he doesn't get any more than any other local government does in federal contributions.
Edit: I don't want to sound like I'm saying "the town should be grateful for these scraps and nothing more", these are benefits to the town on top of the taxes that it pays.
"You’re helping create the problems, so you have to help solve the problem" - Chang
But considering that he can't even get the support of his own citizens at Town Hall meetings, nor the support of his fellow council members, methinks he's simply incompetent.
And that the problems he describes are made up in his imagination. I can't imagine it to be too difficult to come up with a budget that says "We have to pay for X Million Dollars in the next year to fix the bridges and roads... or to upgrade our water pipes, or to deploy municipal gigabit-fiber. So here's a special +5% tax on all corporations in this Town"
And if the fellow citizens and council members think the plan is worth the tax, then they'll probably agree with him. On the other hand, if citizens are balling up his agendas and throwing them out during meetings... there's clearly a problem here. And it isn't with Apple. Its with the Mayor.
I believe the city's infrastructure is struggling to cope with the city's growth. There was mentions of poor and congested roads.
> But considering that he can't even get the support of his own citizens at Town Hall meetings, nor the support of his fellow council members, methinks he's simply incompetent.
to be fair the article points out Apples image as a stumbling block to bring reform:
1) "In the case of Apple, people are so enamored with their iPhones that they can’t see the company. And year after year these companies are voted most respected, most trusted" - Matt Gardner
2) "he tried to organize a rally outside Apple. “But Apple has a pretty good image,” Chang said. “No one wanted to go"
> So here's a special +5% tax on all corporations in this Town
Chang has come up with such a proposal already, albeit it won't levy the extra tax on companies with less than a 100 employees.
> a problem here. And it isn't with Apple. Its with the Mayor.
That could be the case, though I'm leaning towards the Mayors side. This article doesn't go into much depth, and yield enough detail for me to come to a conclusion. I would do some background research but I honestly can't be bothered today. I have a feeling this isn't the last time we here of this, so i'll keep this in the back of my mind for future reference.
IE: Lets increase all corporate taxes by 3% in this city, to pay for a new road project. Here's the proposed road, etc. etc.
I mean, yeah, its hard to get approval from your citizens to build new roads. My area (on the East Coast) had to appease a ton of environmentalist types who refused to build a highway over any wetlands or swamps (ie: cheap areas), and the NIMBY guys who were being threatened with eviction.
But you propose a road (meet with engineers / architects, get some fancy drawings, write it up, build a website, etc.), you describe the costs (not just monetary, but also the houses you have to bulldoze, the "quiet" you have to disturb, meet with HOA communities to help gather support despite the costs), you raise a tax to pay for it, borrow some money with a bond and then it gets done. Its not easy, but its the freaking job of a Mayor.
---------
Why would the Mayor EVER have to explicitly reference Apple through this process? Only a complete dunce would do that, as it reeks of favoritism.
I'm reading through this entire piece, and its completely devoid of substance. The complaints are hilariously awful. I'm not sure if the Mayor is actually incompetent, or if the guardian is just awful at writing and completely focused on the wrong issues.
I mean, cripes. I've NEVER heard of a necessary road project being scuttled because of money. Its almost always the NIMBY people (to be fair, getting evicted from your family home for 50 years gotta suck because a road is being built through your plot), or environmentalists (Protect the swamp! protect the forest! Protect the grasslands!) who seem to get in the way. And NIMBY vs Environmentalists is a hell of an issue to work out.
How much of the city services do they use? How much of the city expenses is their "fair" share?
I had to read it again to make sure I'm not making a mistake. Its unimaginable in some geographies. Evokes mixed feelings like : "cool, they can do that?" to "that's quite arrogant"
Also reminds me of a video where Steve Jobs met the council. The mayor was delighted like a teenager, showing off his iPad to Steve, asking for free Wifi : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuz5OmOh_M ( t=19:54 )