Unless it was in the agreement, they shouldn't. Morally its the right thing to do but if the government was too stupid to put a provision into the agreement to protect the money given, then we should suffer the consequences and ensure those responsible are removed from office.
strangely enough, I agree with Peter. There should have been some type of provision in the agreement that stated that the company would have to stay for "X" number of years, or something to that effect.
Obviously, we need to nail down some specifics of the agreement, but on its face -- Pioneer accepted the subsidies on the pretense of building a new facility and and creating 450 jobs. Neither of which seems to have happened. Based on my non-law-degree understanding of contract law, that's a breach of contract.
If I told you that within the next three to four years, I'll paint your house if you give me $10,000 now to start a new business, and I don't paint your house (even if it's not in writing), I'm in breach of contract. Now you might have a hard time proving it, unless there are plenty of witnesses, but I went through the past four years of Daily News coverage last night and never found Pioneer disputing the basics of the plan.
Verbal contracts are binding. Harder to prove, but binding.
But I only make that point to draw sort of an unusual extreme example. Clearly, in this case, there must be documents that spell out any number of specifics. The big questions about what exact promises/expectations were put in writing and whether there's any teeth to go with those representations still need to be answered.
Posted by Howard Owens on July 23, 2009 - 7:59am
but I went through the past four years of Daily News coverage last night and never found Pioneer disputing the basics of the plan.
Looks like you are putting your new library card to good use.
They should give the money back, based on the lack of a new building and never reaching the job target! Will they give the money back? Probably not. These government agencies/authorities are being run by greedy profiteers who couldn't cut it in private business, and could care less what happens to YOUR MONEY! As long as they have secure positions, they'll keep doling out free money. Wasn't there a restaurant on Main St that received incentive money in the form of loans, subsequently closed because it was a joke of a place? I remember reading in the paper that the owner was way,way delinquent in repayment. If this is one instance, how many others have happened or will happen?
I concur. If they have something in writing then I say yes. I think that this is major drawback of doing business the way we do. If we weren't smart enough to protect ourselves then shame on us, but I agree that they should pay it back.
Looking forward to more info on this Howard! Thanks!
How ironic it is that they are in the business of making people live up to their obligations regarding repaying student loans in a struggling economy. Yet they cannot be held to their own promises when the business climate turns sour?
But who to vote out? Tom Reynold's is gone. I don't be Steve Hawley was in office yet. I know Mike Ranzenhofer wasn't. George Pataki is gone. The City Council has had some significant change over in the past five years. I've not seen the names of any County Legislators pop up as significantly involved in this. GCEDC staff are not elected. Taxpayers are left holding the bag, it appears.
The problem with contracts nowadays is that no matter how well written a loophole will always be found. If there isn't a loophole then the corporation will still break it. The financial penalties lately have been insignificant to say the least. ie. Banking and Automotive Giants. Plus who will be the watchdog to assure it is paid? The Government - haha. They are some of the worst to keep their hand out of the cookie jar. It used to be that when you had a contract you indeed had a binding agreement. Nowadays it is nothing. Even a gentlemens agreement twenty years ago would have held more weight. This culture is lacking morals and ethics.
We've now learned that Pioneer never received the proposed grant money and repaid its loan. We'll have a fuller story on this later, but for now, I'm removing this poll from the home page.
Unless it was in the
Unless it was in the agreement, they shouldn't. Morally its the right thing to do but if the government was too stupid to put a provision into the agreement to protect the money given, then we should suffer the consequences and ensure those responsible are removed from office.
strangely enough, I agree
strangely enough, I agree with Peter. There should have been some type of provision in the agreement that stated that the company would have to stay for "X" number of years, or something to that effect.
Obviously, we need to nail
Obviously, we need to nail down some specifics of the agreement, but on its face -- Pioneer accepted the subsidies on the pretense of building a new facility and and creating 450 jobs. Neither of which seems to have happened. Based on my non-law-degree understanding of contract law, that's a breach of contract.
If I told you that within the next three to four years, I'll paint your house if you give me $10,000 now to start a new business, and I don't paint your house (even if it's not in writing), I'm in breach of contract. Now you might have a hard time proving it, unless there are plenty of witnesses, but I went through the past four years of Daily News coverage last night and never found Pioneer disputing the basics of the plan.
Does it still count if its
Does it still count if its verbal claim vs what's on paper though?
Verbal contracts are binding.
Verbal contracts are binding. Harder to prove, but binding.
But I only make that point to draw sort of an unusual extreme example. Clearly, in this case, there must be documents that spell out any number of specifics. The big questions about what exact promises/expectations were put in writing and whether there's any teeth to go with those representations still need to be answered.
Posted by Howard Owens on
Posted by Howard Owens on July 23, 2009 - 7:59am
but I went through the past four years of Daily News coverage last night and never found Pioneer disputing the basics of the plan.
Looks like you are putting your new library card to good use.
They should give the money
They should give the money back, based on the lack of a new building and never reaching the job target! Will they give the money back? Probably not. These government agencies/authorities are being run by greedy profiteers who couldn't cut it in private business, and could care less what happens to YOUR MONEY! As long as they have secure positions, they'll keep doling out free money. Wasn't there a restaurant on Main St that received incentive money in the form of loans, subsequently closed because it was a joke of a place? I remember reading in the paper that the owner was way,way delinquent in repayment. If this is one instance, how many others have happened or will happen?
I concur. If they have
I concur. If they have something in writing then I say yes. I think that this is major drawback of doing business the way we do. If we weren't smart enough to protect ourselves then shame on us, but I agree that they should pay it back.
Looking forward to more info on this Howard! Thanks!
How ironic it is that they
How ironic it is that they are in the business of making people live up to their obligations regarding repaying student loans in a struggling economy. Yet they cannot be held to their own promises when the business climate turns sour?
Pioneer Credit is a private
Pioneer Credit is a private company and the only why to stop gov. wasting money on them is to vote tehm out. Remember that this November.
But who to vote out? Tom
But who to vote out? Tom Reynold's is gone. I don't be Steve Hawley was in office yet. I know Mike Ranzenhofer wasn't. George Pataki is gone. The City Council has had some significant change over in the past five years. I've not seen the names of any County Legislators pop up as significantly involved in this. GCEDC staff are not elected. Taxpayers are left holding the bag, it appears.
Actually it would seem we,
Actually it would seem we, the voters, have already trimmed the fat Howard. This is just some left over fallout whose source has been dealt with.
The problem with contracts
The problem with contracts nowadays is that no matter how well written a loophole will always be found. If there isn't a loophole then the corporation will still break it. The financial penalties lately have been insignificant to say the least. ie. Banking and Automotive Giants. Plus who will be the watchdog to assure it is paid? The Government - haha. They are some of the worst to keep their hand out of the cookie jar. It used to be that when you had a contract you indeed had a binding agreement. Nowadays it is nothing. Even a gentlemens agreement twenty years ago would have held more weight. This culture is lacking morals and ethics.
We've now learned that
We've now learned that Pioneer never received the proposed grant money and repaid its loan. We'll have a fuller story on this later, but for now, I'm removing this poll from the home page.