Incentives should be viewed as an investment not a free handout. The goal is to diversify and maximize the city's tax base which in turn ensures revenues to support a good quality of life while not overburdening city taxpayers. A restaurant with no track record beyond a prior failure which will be added competition for other downtown restaurants dependent on limited parking spaces does not meet the goal. In the case of AAA, I don't believe anyone would make the argument that a $15,500.00 incentive was even a factor in their decision to expand. In their case they took the view--Never turn down free money. I wish both enterprises success but they don't warrant incentives. As for meeting the goal that will take a more pro-active approach by the city. That will require better marketing of the city and going out and finding business/tourism opportunities.

Matt, I don't see how city taxpayers are overburdened with these incentives and by adding these two businesses to the tax base. I also think your comment about the restaurant is a bit of a low blow considering that any business that uses that space would be adding to the existing competition for parking spaces.

Dan, Let me make this as simple as possible. If a business is locating in the city anyway why give them an incentive? Also why keep offering incentives to the same type of businesses which only create more competition. Not saying to stop a business from locating to the city. What I'm saying is incentives need to be used to help recruit better business opportunities to the city. Not just sit back and take what comes. We need to lose the attitude that you seem to express that something is better than nothing. The point is incentives should only be used to meet city development goals. Based on the points I made above please give me your take on how these two businesses meet the stated goals.

Dan--On the specific issue of downtown parking additional spaces will be required to meet the demands outlined in the revenue figures presented to date. Minus--Longstreets. Recruiting even higher end jobs to downtown will require another look at parking. Yet the city ignores this limitation, along with the issues of competition, business modeling, history, and economic diversity, when awarding incentives. If we believe the case projections in the Moseley report (questionable in my view) then existing downtown parking is going to be taken up with lawyers, defendants, witnesses, etc. and shoppers and dinners will be out of luck. A lot more thought needs to go into the future development of the city and the awarding of incentives. Right now we seem happy with accepting revenue, job, and investment projections from any business that comes through the door with their hand out. And even after they have put out their shingle.

Still looking for a response to my last question.

Matt, you cannot have it both ways. In one comment you say that it should be obvious that $15,500 in incentives is not the reason AAA is occupying space in the city but then you want the city to use the incentives to recruit better business. Well, if the money isn't the reason why AAA is coming here then why would we think the money is going to be the determining factor for any business considering the city as a location? To answer your question, both of these business ideas meet the guidelines of the program. You served on the council when these guidelines were approved (2007). Are the guidelines not strict enough? The restaurant got 65 out of 100 points from the downtown tourism zone criteria list. One could argue that a 65 percent score isn't high enough to warrant the incentives. There are plenty of people who do not agree that just because a business is opening in the city anyway, that it deserves less attention than a business that is considering Fredericksburg and Winchester. Should city officials rule so narrow and not give incentives to a restaurant because downtown has enough of them? Maybe restaurants, antique shops and small clothing and gift shops are all downtown can support. I would think if there were better business opportunities for downtown then the market would have delivered those opportunities and the businessman would come to collect his or her free money from the city.

Dan you would make a great bureaucrat. It fits the guidelines it's acceptable. Because there is nothing on the form regarding competition, business modeling, history, compatibility, and diversity they are not important. Whether there is a sustainable positive impact on the bottom line is immaterial. I supported using incentives and still do. However, as I have posted now for over a year, the intent was to use incentives to recruit business opportunities, and not just for downtown, that diversified the city's tax base, brings in higher end employment, and helps build-up the city's tourism base. This was the goal when incentives were first discussed with David Holder.

What incentives have become, and the guidelines were revised after I left to make it easier to qualify, is handout with no effort to recruit but rather offer them to whom ever comes through the door. In three cases, including the latest two, they are being given to businesses who had already decided to locate here. Incentives are for bringing a deal to conclusion that meet city goals. They are not a prize to be awarded after the fact.

I did support the current outline for incentives. I am acknowledging that as presently being used they are a failure. We need to rethink our use of incentives and bring them back to the original goals discussed with David Holder. If it's not working fix it.