Returning to the Litebox story, one thing does concern me about the news coverage is that every reporter thus far has simply accepted government officials' assurances as true that Litebox will not receive any government subsidies or abatements until such time as Litebox proves that it has produced the promised jobs. Since when has that ever been the case? First, I seriously doubt the timing that would require that every last employee be hired by Litebox before the company received a penny of public support - direct or indirect. Second, since when has the City consistently monitored whether companies live up to their job promises? Third, if the City finds out Litebox didn't fulfill its job promises, will the City aggressively enforce pursue enforcement of the breached contract? The City's track record on that front is terrible. One only has to look at the Navistar example as proof of that. The City allowed Navistar off the hook for only a fraction of what it owed for not living up to employment promises and then a year later was giving the company new tax abatements.
This morning's Star story on Yanigahara is must reading. It recounts numerous times when Yanigahara sought out suckers willing to make investments baked solely on naked promises. City and State officials are attempting to assure the public that they haven't been taken for suckers, that the the deal is structured so that Yanigahara and his company won't see any money until he lives up to everything he promised. Frankly I don't believe them.