South Texas school board gives Exxon $1.2 billion tax break
Source: Associated Press
South Texas school board gives Exxon $1.2 billion tax break
Updated 3:56 pm, Thursday, March 23, 2017
PORTLAND, Texas (AP) A South Texas school board has approved an estimated $1.2 billion in tax breaks to entice Exxon Mobil Corp. and its Saudi partner to build a $9.3 billion petrochemical plant within its district along the Texas Gulf Coast.
The six-member Gregory-Portland Independent School District board's unanimous vote late Tuesday adds to a $210 million tax package passed a day earlier by San Patricio County commissioners.
Exxon and Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corp. are considering a 1,300-acre (526-hectare) site in Portland, just north of Corpus Christi, for the world's largest ethane steam cracker plant. It would convert natural gas into chemicals used for plastics.
. . .
Under terms of the school board tax plan, the district would limit the taxable value of the new plant at $90 million for 10 years, cutting the district's tax revenue from an estimated $120.9 million per year to less than $1.2 million per year.
Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/South-Texas-school-board-gives-Exxon-1-2-billion-11022971.php
turbinetree
(24,695 posts)because if you type in on google: "How does Texas rate in Public Education K-12 Nationwide" ............the first thing you get on the list is this:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2016/01/27/report-says-texas-school-standards-are-worst-in-nationhow
So way to go ...............................give your Rex Tillerson cronies a $9.3 billion dollar tax break and while your at it the state gets a "TWOFER" pollution
LeftInTX
(25,305 posts)That is crazy. So they will only meet 1% of their budget??
iluvtennis
(19,852 posts)CCExile
(468 posts)and right on the northwestern side of town. Portland will be ruined, but it is Trumpland, so maybe they are happy about it. Over the next few decades all of the northern shore of Corpus Christi Bay will be petro-industrial and covered by tens of thousands of supporting cheap apartments. Subsidized by the tax payers. What's not to like?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)How about getting the Exxon plant to pay for all of that? Plus using some of it to pay off the debt that they have to pay over $4m a year to service? Then at least the people forced to live next to the thing would benefit by not having to pay school taxes.
DeminPennswoods
(15,286 posts)out here where I live. The state gave 1.65B in tax incentives over 25 years.
CCExile
(468 posts)That explains so much about Texas!
DeminPennswoods
(15,286 posts)I don't think all the tax breaks were needed because Shell was probably going to build the plant anyway. They want the natural gas from the shale formations in western PA and eastern OH. Shell already has a big refinery complex near Phila in Marcus Hook and is building out its pipeline from there to help service the cracker plant and ship gas to western PA.
The ethane cracker plant produces the feedstock for the plastics industry, so it's not likely to fade away like the mills. Even if eventually the US goes to plant-based plastics, it should remain viable.
I have to say, too, it is the biggest thing I have ever seen built. I'm sure the steel mills were on a similar scale, but they were built before my time. I am blown away every time I drive by the construction site.
Grins
(7,217 posts)The "Gregory-Portland Independent School District" has the authority over taxes? A school board? Not the town mayor and city council? Whut...?
I'm not from Texas, so can anyone explain this?
dalton99a
(81,475 posts)so they have the legal authority to raise and cut property taxes and grant exemptions just like cities and counties
Igel
(35,300 posts)They float bond measures.
And if they have too much revenue they lose it through a "Robin Hood" program. That just happened to Houstin ISD. They list a chunk of property--it's transferred for taxation purposes to another school district. (HISD liked the program when they were poorer than others; protested and want to revise the law when they're not benefitting from it.)