[dragontamer]

Maybe if he described what these problems were, he's get my support.

But considering that he can't even get the support of his own citizens at Town Hall meetings, nor the support of his fellow council members, methinks he's simply incompetent.

And that the problems he describes are made up in his imagination. I can't imagine it to be too difficult to come up with a budget that says "We have to pay for X Million Dollars in the next year to fix the bridges and roads... or to upgrade our water pipes, or to deploy municipal gigabit-fiber. So here's a special +5% tax on all corporations in this Town"

And if the fellow citizens and council members think the plan is worth the tax, then they'll probably agree with him. On the other hand, if citizens are balling up his agendas and throwing them out during meetings... there's clearly a problem here. And it isn't with Apple. Its with the Mayor.

[demarq]

> Maybe if he described what these problems were, he's get my support.

I believe the city's infrastructure is struggling to cope with the city's growth. There was mentions of poor and congested roads.

> But considering that he can't even get the support of his own citizens at Town Hall meetings, nor the support of his fellow council members, methinks he's simply incompetent.

to be fair the article points out Apples image as a stumbling block to bring reform:

1) "In the case of Apple, people are so enamored with their iPhones that they can’t see the company. And year after year these companies are voted most respected, most trusted" - Matt Gardner

2) "he tried to organize a rally outside Apple. “But Apple has a pretty good image,” Chang said. “No one wanted to go"

> So here's a special +5% tax on all corporations in this Town

Chang has come up with such a proposal already, albeit it won't levy the extra tax on companies with less than a 100 employees.

> a problem here. And it isn't with Apple. Its with the Mayor.

That could be the case, though I'm leaning towards the Mayors side. This article doesn't go into much depth, and yield enough detail for me to come to a conclusion. I would do some background research but I honestly can't be bothered today. I have a feeling this isn't the last time we here of this, so i'll keep this in the back of my mind for future reference.

[dragontamer]

Don't mention Apple explicitly in a law.

IE: Lets increase all corporate taxes by 3% in this city, to pay for a new road project. Here's the proposed road, etc. etc.

I mean, yeah, its hard to get approval from your citizens to build new roads. My area (on the East Coast) had to appease a ton of environmentalist types who refused to build a highway over any wetlands or swamps (ie: cheap areas), and the NIMBY guys who were being threatened with eviction.

But you propose a road (meet with engineers / architects, get some fancy drawings, write it up, build a website, etc.), you describe the costs (not just monetary, but also the houses you have to bulldoze, the "quiet" you have to disturb, meet with HOA communities to help gather support despite the costs), you raise a tax to pay for it, borrow some money with a bond and then it gets done. Its not easy, but its the freaking job of a Mayor.

---------

Why would the Mayor EVER have to explicitly reference Apple through this process? Only a complete dunce would do that, as it reeks of favoritism.

I'm reading through this entire piece, and its completely devoid of substance. The complaints are hilariously awful. I'm not sure if the Mayor is actually incompetent, or if the guardian is just awful at writing and completely focused on the wrong issues.

I mean, cripes. I've NEVER heard of a necessary road project being scuttled because of money. Its almost always the NIMBY people (to be fair, getting evicted from your family home for 50 years gotta suck because a road is being built through your plot), or environmentalists (Protect the swamp! protect the forest! Protect the grasslands!) who seem to get in the way. And NIMBY vs Environmentalists is a hell of an issue to work out.