And we trust Google's target numbers to decide how much Google should get paid?
Any reliable baseline numbers here are basically impossible, because
- The land is massively underutilized right now consider it's location, with or without Google's help it is going to become more utilized and property values are going to go up.
- The government is pouring billions of dollars into this area, which is going to have returns with or without Google's help.
> it's a win-win situation
Paying someone more money is not a win-win. Developing the land is, but the negotiation over how much you get paid is approximately zero sum.
> And we trust Google's target numbers to decide how much Google should get paid?
I was talking about the city's targets.
> The government is pouring billions of dollars into this area
Right, and Google is proposing to instead of taking billions as a flat sum, taking it over 30 years instead, because they believe in the success of the project.
> which is going to have returns with or without Google's help.
They clearly want Google's help, as this project is already 1-2 years in the working, and has already gotten approval from all 3 levels of government. If they didn't want Google, they could've very easily refused the offer. No one is forcing anything on anyone.
> Paying someone more money is not a win-win.
Who said more money? Why do you instantly assume the worst? Take any amount of money you were going to pay them for their work. Take any target you had for how successful the project was going to be, and calculate the percentage distributed over 30 years. No one is talking about paying them more than they are owed.
Ok, the next part addressed why it's not really possible for those to be accurate either.
Also see the whole 407 thing discussed elsewhere in the thread. Trusting the cities numbers to be accurate/not just a version of Google's numbers is foolish.
The fact that you have to trust someones numbers at all is sufficient proof of my original statement, that this obscures the actual cost of the project.
> and has already gotten approval from all 3 levels of government.
That's a gross exaggeration. All the levels of government are talking to them, but as discussed in the article they are hardly on board.
> not really possible for those to be accurate either
Sure, but you can make a good estimate, and if it ends up being more, then everyone wins. Google makes more, but so does the city and all businesses involved. And let's not ignore the other side of the coin, where if they do poorly, they will make less money.
> as discussed in the article they are hardly on board.
That's about this specific proposal, I was talking about the project as a whole, which was announced October 2017.
And we trust Google's target numbers to decide how much Google should get paid?
Any reliable baseline numbers here are basically impossible, because
- The land is massively underutilized right now consider it's location, with or without Google's help it is going to become more utilized and property values are going to go up.
- The government is pouring billions of dollars into this area, which is going to have returns with or without Google's help.
> it's a win-win situation
Paying someone more money is not a win-win. Developing the land is, but the negotiation over how much you get paid is approximately zero sum.