<p>*This should make Mom2CollegeKids happy. It does me!</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>Sure does! I wrote to Dr. Karr last year with this request after learning that Auburn and GT had offices there. Dr. Karr sent me a nice hand-written reply. Glad to see that this was pursued.</p>
<p>Roll Tide</p>
<p>(it also shows that if you have an idea, go ahead and contact the ones in charge…they might listen!)</p>
<p>*The University of Alabama has opened a new research office in Huntsville that UA officials say will keep the system better informed of research opportunities best suited for the “unique expertise” of its Tuscaloosa and Huntsville campuses. </p>
<p>The office opened Oct. 1 and Suzy Young was named its director of research advancement. In that role, Young is responsible for identifying and facilitating research opportunities for UA and UA-Huntsville faculty, staff and students with industry, the Department of Defense, NASA and other federal agencies, said UA’s Vice President of Research Joe Benson.</p>
<p>“The presence of Redstone Arsenal, NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and other key entities in Huntsville make the city a hub for research activity,” Benson said. “It is extremely difficult to work with these Huntsville entities from two and a half hours away. Many institutions, including Auburn, Georgia Tech and MIT have research advancement offices in Huntsville.”</p>
<p>Whoever on past UA Boards decided to “let” UAH be
THE engineering program in the UA system, should have had their head examined. Of course, it isn’t THE program in the system any longer, but they should have never let UA Engineering be the lesser program. It has taken way too long for UA’s program to catch up. </p>
<p>I wonder why the system doesn’t develop a joint program so that students from both schools can utilize the best resources of both schools. What other flagship has to compete with sister campuses in the same system like UA does? In a relatively poor state! Good thing Bama alumni love their school so much.</p>
<p>*UA just keeps getting better and better…after I leave lol *</p>
<p>LOL…it was because Dr. Witt’s vision and Bama’s implementation of large scholarship offers to students like you 5+ years ago, the Tide got rolling. </p>
<p>Now, that you’re well-employed in your field (ChemE, right?) in another state (PA? OH?), perhaps you can be the means to bring other Bama grads to your area?</p>
<p>Just read this article, but something bothers me. UAH and Auburn are one thing…but why are Georgia Tech and MIT allowed to set up shop?! Alabama schools don’t exactly have a lot to work with in this state, unlike schools in Massachusetts and Georgia, and it’s not like MIT and Georgia Tech aren’t already on these companies’ RD departments’ speed dials. Alabama schools ought to be getting first dibs on these contracts, especially since I’m sure these companies are getting tax incentives from the state.</p>
<p>*but why are Georgia Tech and MIT allowed to set up shop?! *</p>
<p>??? “allowed to”??? What’s to prevent them? This is a free country.</p>
<p>especially since I’m sure these companies are getting tax incentives from the state.</p>
<p>What does the possibility that various companies are getting tax incentives have to do with MIT or GT being able to rent office space on private land and do whatever???</p>
<p>You think the state can tell Boeing and the rest that they have to ignore MIT and GT?</p>
<p>You do realize that you’re living in the US now, right?</p>
<p>Corporations set up business in various states after much exploration (and sometimes competition). If a state were to put forth those kinds of restrictions, then those corporations would just choose another state to set up shop.</p>
<p>Boeing and the others are powerful enough that when they’re out “state hunting” to find new locations, that if State A put in that provision, they would just choose State B that didn’t. </p>
<p>These companies have to be able to choose who they want to employ…wherever the student went to school. </p>
<p>And, if a state ever tried to do such a thing, the companies would quickly do an “end run” by hiring desired employees at an OOS location and then transferring the employees in. These companies are operating in several states. </p>
<p>States should never try to micromanage private businesses like that.</p>
<p>I think the conversation veered off somewhere because I wasn’t referring to forcing any companies hire anybody for employment. I’m asking how the state and UA stood by and allowed out-of-area schools to swoop in and set up offices to lobby for research grants for this long.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The point of these incentives is to bring these companies into the state, period. It’s not too much to ask of companies taking state money to give preferential treatment to in-state entities over out-of-state ones unless, of course, these companies did not accept incentives and moved here of their own accord and with their own money.</p>
<p>*I’m asking how the state and UA stood by and allowed out-of-area schools to swoop in and set up offices to lobby for research grants for this long.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>And, we’re asking what the State of Alabama and UA could have done to stop out of area schools from renting offices in privately-owned business buildings? </p>
<p>Do you really think that UA or the state of Alabama could prevent a private property owner from renting office space to MIT or GT? </p>
<p>Just how would they do that without some amazing over-reach of gov’t power? </p>
<p>You do understand that we have private property rights in this country?</p>
<p>The state of Alabama and The University cannot prevent a private property owner from renting their property (or selling their property) to MIT or GT. Heck, MIT could open a satellite campus here if it desired.</p>
<p>*It’s not too much to ask of companies taking state money to give preferential treatment to in-state entities over out-of-state ones *</p>
<p>First of all…giving tax incentives is not “taking state money”. lol It’s our money first. </p>
<p>If I decide to take advantage of a tax incentive and install a more energy efficient A/C unit in my home, I’m not taking the gov’ts money. It’s MY MONEY.</p>
<p>And, yes, it is too much to ask. Why? Because other states that want those companies will say, “hey, we won’t make that demand of you.”</p>
<p>Let me put this in a way that maybe a young single guy can understand.</p>
<p>Say, you’re dating 2 nice ladies and you’re thinking of choosing to settle down with one of them. Both ladies are amazing. You like them both equally. They’re smart, they’re funny, they’re pretty, they earn the same amount of money…heck, they’re almost like twins…but…</p>
<p>Lady #1 says…If you choose me, from now on you must only buy your clothes at Stores X, Y and Z …even if you happen to occasionally want to buy your clothes at Store A and Store B, you can’t.</p>
<p>Lady #2 says…If you choose me, you can buy your clothes wherever the heck you want. </p>
<p>Which lady gets dropped faster than you can say: Sayonara? </p>
<p>(and then later, Lonely Lady #1 laments to her friends, “Was it really too much to ask?”)</p>
<p>I don’t see any problem with OOS schools having research offices in Alabama. UA has operations in other states, such as the student recruiters in California. </p>
<p>Alabama gives tax incentives to encourage businesses, particularly foreign profit corporations (OOS companies), to locate some of their business operations in Alabama. The state providing the incentives does so because it wants the tax revenue that comes from the company and its employees spending large amounts of money in the state. </p>
<p>m2ck is very correct that companies will locate where they can get the lowest costs and highest profits, both of which can be influenced by tax incentives. Boeing is currently searching for a place to build the next generation of 737 aircraft and various states are introducing tax and regulatory incentives to get Boeing to assemble the new aircraft in that state. There is also the famous case of Bill Gates testifying before the US Senate to relax visa standards so the company could import highly-skilled workers only to have his request denied. Microsoft then decided to move those 700+ jobs across the border to British Columbia as it is/was much easier for its employees to get Canadian visas.</p>
<p>I think Mom is correct in this debate, but I must say that I have always been skeptical of Gates’ impassioned pleas for more visas. We have plenty of American engineering students who need jobs. Gates wants more workers who are willing to work for much less. I understand the business calculus there, but I still think it is short sighted. When rich CEOs ignore the long run consequences of the race to the bottom, we have the kind of economy we are dealing with today. I don’t consider Gates a patriot. And his interventions in Africa place way too much emphasis on expensive and toxic drugs than clean water, food, and basic health care.</p>
<p>*m2ck is very correct that companies will locate where they can get the lowest costs and highest profits, both of which can be influenced by tax incentives. *</p>
<p>And, state officials who try to “over-reach” and make excessive demands find that companies choose elsewhere to set up shop. And then those state officials find themselves fired or voted out of office for having such poor business-sense. </p>
<p>It’s a Buyers Market and these companies are the “buyers”. The state is “selling” a location knowing that the end result will be more jobs and tax revenue (the point of tax incentives are so that state ends up netting more in taxes than it would if the company weren’t there.). And, in a Buyers Market, the Seller doesn’t have the power to be making demands.</p>
lol</p>