In today’s article on possible changes to the state’s Enterprise Zone tax credits, the City’s Economic development Manager Jason Crawford made it sound as if the bill would severely harm local businesses. Indeed, he said it would “strangle” efforts to hire local employees.
Santa Clarita Marketing and Economic Development Manager Jason Crawford said the amendment would “hamstring” local businesses.
“The intent of the enterprise zone is for business growth and expansion,” Crawford said. “This (amendment) would strangle the potential benefit of the enterprise zone tax credits.”
Crawford said the hiring requirements for businesses that want to get a tax credit are already restrictive. The amendment would make it “exponentially” more difficult for businesses to get tax credits, he said.
First of all, the intent of the Enterprise Zone program isn’t just for “business growth and expansion.” The state says its purpose is to “stimulate business investment in depressed areas of the state and create job opportunities for Californians.”
But beyond that, The Signal reinforced Crawford’s statement in their headline saying that AB 1139 would “hamper” enterprise zone hirings.
Clearly the Signal and Crawford were trying to get across the message that this bill would be bad for local businesses. But is that all there is to the story?
Here’s a summary of the bill from Assemblyman John Perez, speaker of the Assembly:
As amended, this bill would revise the existing enterprise zone program in several ways: First, the bill will increase the tax credit for employers of full time workers who provide health benefits to their employees, and will decrease the tax credit for part time and non-benefited employees. Additionally the bill will eliminate the practice of retro-vouchering (whereby employers retroactively receive the tax benefit for employees they have already hired)
Guess the Signal and Crawford forgot to mention that the bill would actually increase the tax credit to employers if they provided health benefits to new employees! That sounds to me like a benefit a municipality would want if it’s truly concerned with the health and welfare of its residents.
More bang for our buck right?
So why then does the City of Santa Clarita sound like the California Chamber of Commerce when it’s asked to comment on the bill?
What’s more, the amendment would require local businesses to submit more complete reports, which would allow us, the taxpayers, to review how our money is being spent.
Our city government is tasked with creating an environment favorable to business, but that is, at best, a secondary priority. It’s first priority is to represent us, the people, not just the 11,000 odd business owners in Santa Clarita, who we just gave $200,000 to do a job similar to Mr. Crawford’s.
Comments (12)