Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Saturn V who wrote (176431)	1/7/2004 1:19:02 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

The proposition 13 is still in effect, and so "tax scam benefits" are still being reaped by all new companies. Your logic does not add up. Yeah it does, because the tech companies who owned property at the time, Intel being one of the largest property owners in SV, reaped a huge windfall in property value escalation and frozen tax rates. HP is another one, through their acquisition of Tandem Computers especially, own a huge RE portfolio in SV. These firms never sell their properties they lease them for exhorbinant rates to the next new company be it Google or whoever. Google and any 90s firm pays through the nose, Intel and HP just sit there and watch the money flow in. Since Intel was probably one of the largest corporate beneficiaries of this "tax revolt", I find it somewhat disingenuous that Barrett complains about California tax rates. I am sure that dollar for dollar, adding up all taxes that Intel has to pay to be in CA, they probably pay less taxes than if they relocate to another state, assuming their effective property tax is zero. (If a new company wants to complain about California taxes ok but these old firms that are part of the problem shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth imho). Anyway the point is that there are a lot of excesses in the system and to say that these 70s/80s companies were somehow superior to their 90s counterparts leaves off some of this inequity, that is my only point.

To: Saturn V who wrote (176431)	1/7/2004 1:51:05 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I wonder what the real story is here? Intel site approved for federal courthouse Austin's new Federal District Courthouse, which will replace the incomplete Intel Corp. building, has cleared an environmental review process and now will enter an 18-month design phase, the U.S. General Services Administration announced Wednesday. Austin-based architectural firm PageSoutherlandPage Inc. will collaborate on the design with Altanta-based Mack Scogin Merrill Elam Architects Inc. In July, the GSA announced it had signed a binding agreement to buy Intel Corp.'s unfinished high-tech research and development site so it can build a new $45 million to $55 million federal courthouse downtown. The site covers an entire city block bounded by Fourth, Fifth, Nueces and San Antonio streets. A sale price for the property wasn't released. Intel halted construction on its 10-story design center in the spring of 2001 after completing several floors of the concrete shell, citing uncertainty in light of slowing economic conditions. Many business leaders have considered the Intel site an eyesore. The Intel building will be leveled for construction of the courthouse. The new courthouse will house the U.S. Magistrate Court and U.S. District Court, which now operate in Austin's historic U.S. Courthouse. The courthouse was built in 1935 at 200 W. Eighth St. The building will allow federal agencies to move into more than 232,809 square feet, which will include eight courtrooms, 14 chambers, offices for the U.S. Marshal Service and several justice-related offices. The GSA announced tentative plans to begin construction in 2005 and complete it in 2007. The GSA is the centralized federal property purchase and management agency. Santa Clara-based Intel Corp. [Nasdaq: INTC] employs about 600 people in Austin.