| Company | Time Warner Inc./Time Inc. (second package) |
| Date Announced | 6/28/1999 |
| Site | 1271 Avenue of the Americas |
| Total Subsidy | $28 million |
|
$12.3 million |
| Promised Job Creation | ??? |
| Promised Job Retention | ??? |
| Length of Contract | ??? |
| Competing Sites | Atlanta, Boston and New Jersey |
| Conditions | If either Time Inc. or HBO reneges on their deals, both Time Warner companies will lose all their tax breaks. |
| Notes | This
was the second deal within three months for a division of media mega-firm
Time Warner, Inc. Since Time Inc., the company's publishing division,
still had 10 years on its lease at the Time Life building, some real
estate executives were skeptical about the company's threat to move some
jobs. Time Warner President Richard Parsons has demonstrated that these kinds of deals are less about economic development and more about corporations demanding equal-opportunity subsidies from the city and state: In 1998, "the Giuliani administration rebuffed Time Warner when the company asked for tax breaks for its proposed new headquarters at Columbus Circle. Richard D. Parsons, president of Time Warner, had argued that he only wanted the same kind of subsidies the city had granted to his competitors: Bertelsmann A.G., Viacom Inc. and NBC" (New York Times, 6/29/99). |
| Corporate Notes | Time Warner is the world's largest media conglomerate, even before its planned merger with internet firm America Online. Time Warner's holdings include cable television systems and cable channels, including CNN and HBO, as well as the WB broadcast television network, the Warner group of record labels and the Warner Bros. movie studios. HBO had received $11 million to stay in New York City just months before this deal. |
| Critics | "How many times are we going to give a tax break to Time Warner?" asked Jonathan Bowles, research director of the Center for an Urban Future. "At one time, these deals might have been necessary to retain large employers. But today, they are nothing more than giveaways to influential companies that just want to grab their share of the city's tax revenue pie." (New York Times, 6/29/99). |
| A
note on sources -- or why many of these profiles appear incomplete.
They are. Good Jobs New York compiled the numbers in these profiles from
press releases and news accounts of the deals. Unfortunately, more
detailed information on these subsidies is very difficult to obtain --
even though it should be readily available to the public. In many cases,
neither the company nor the city nor state released certain information,
particularly the terms of the agreement, i.e., the conditions which the
company had to meet in order to receive the subsidy. It should also be
noted that the value of the subsidy may not end up being equal to the
value estimated at the time of the agreement. And it should not be assumed
that the actual number of jobs retained and created will be the same as
the numbers predicted.
Because the public deserves easy access to information about how taxpayer dollars are being spent, Good Jobs New York will update these profiles as we uncover more information. Good Jobs New York - May 25, 2001 |
|