Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Watts offers new incentives for clean-tech businesses to come to Surrey

April 1st, 2010 · 18 Comments

Cities all over the Lower Mainland are falling over themselves these days to attract businesses, but Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts is the champ at delivering her message the loudest and clearest that the door is open in her city — complete with property tax holidays and fee breaks.

Yet again, she gets lots of attention for that message at her State of the City address, where her speech was almost completely focused on getting jobs and business for her growing city.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Urbanismo

    This rings of desperation . . .

  • dan

    this is good to hear. There is a definite and increasingly pronounced disconnect between the cities and the federal government. News of this on the same day that Harper is discontinuing the program that saw home owners get thousands of dollars in subsidies for retro-fitting their energy ineffcient homes!
    what a guy….

  • Chris

    I think this a good idea. But as someone who works for one of Vancouver’s clean-tech companies, I really hope we don’t move to Surrey.

  • Urbanismo

    What is wrong with this picture . . .

    Gordon Campbell allows off-shoring of raw logs: from my tenth floor window I see yarders, now, loading a big freighter!

    Gordon Campbell ‘s R of R killing our spawning rivers!

    Gordon Campbell’s fish farms killing our fry: everywhere on the coast there are open net buoys, I’ve seen them sailing Toba and Humfrey!

    Gordon Campbell’s casino: its our bank that will go broke!

    Gordon Campbell gives tree farm licenses to sprawl!

    And now the Mayor of Surrey on a give-way rampage: I’ve got news for Mayor Dianne . . . give aways never pay off!

    It’s called neo-liberalism . . .
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4962

    Desperation . . . and it don’t work.

  • michael geller

    This is not desperation…this is simply a response to a growing public desire for more things ‘green’ and yes, an attempt to compete with Vancouver’s proclamation that it wants to become the greenest city on the planet.

    I was one of the many guests invited by the Mayor to yesterday’s event. It was an impressive event…especially when compared to the Vancouver Mayor’s ‘State of the City’ address….

    The fact is, Surrey is taking a number of initiatives that Vancouver should also be considering. And while many Vancouverites enjoy taking pot-shots at Surrey, I wont’ be surprised if Surrey makes greater progress than Vancouver over the next 10 years when it comes to creating an enhanced civic precinct, and dealing with the problems of its most disadvantaged neighbourhood.

    Yes, I am somewhat biased since I sit on the Mayor’s Economic Advisory Committee and the the Board of Directors of the city’s Community Development Corporation. But then, Vancouver has neither.

  • Joe Just Joe

    Michael, this is one of those times I’m going to have to disagree with you. By all means entice businesses by cutting red tape, cutting time delays and other such means. But never ever offer financial incentives such as tax breaks. The short term gain is not worth it long term. The reason we continous see them is policticans only think short/mid term. Over the longer term it will lead to either
    1) The incentives need to remain in place as the companies that took advantage of them become dependant on them and can not survive w/o them. (We saw this with the low Canadian dollar)
    2) Once the incentives end they shop around to a new region othering the same or better incentives.

    I completely understand that it sucks competing trying to compete against other regions that resort to cheating, but joining them isn’t the solution.

  • WW

    At the end of the day clean tech companies will go where the talent they need to hire wants to live and work.

    A tax break might give a company an incentive to try a Surrey location (especially if they don’t currently have a presence in the Vancouver region), but will they stay once their first property lease expires?

    People who work in clean tech might have philosophical problems with living or working in such an automobile-centric city as Surrey.

  • Joe

    This is another example of Surrey’s Mayor and council actually working to create change for the better.

    To summarize the haters comments; “Surrey sucks, but don’t try to do anything to make it better.”

  • Al

    Right on, Joe Just Joe.
    Green companies moving to Surrey will (in 2010) find it hard to attract the technical talent willing to commute to Surrey in a non-green manner.

  • Al

    Re: “Joe” — Straw man much? By all means, improve Surrey, but begin with improving the education and community infrastructure that will make it attractive for the people that work for green companies to live in Surrey.

    As JJJ alluded to, throwing money at companies in the form of tax breaks just makes them dependent on them to remain profitable.

  • Michael Geller

    Joe Just Joe, the tax breaks are intended to encourage new developments and include the following:
    a) no property taxes for 3 years; b) DCC’s reduced by 30%; c)deferred DCC payments; d)building permit fees reduced by 50% for projects over $10 million in specified areas.

    While I agree that ongoing subsidies can be counter-productive, especially when they end, the forementioned incentives can result in new projects that otherwise would not be built. For this reason, I think they are justified.

    In a related vein, Vancouver would very much like to see new office developments…however, they really are not happening given current fiscal realities. I suspect that at some point our city will realize that such incentives are necessary.

    Developers are like most shoppers…they are often seduced into buying things when they appear to be ‘on sale’. At the moment it’s STIR projects in Vancouver and Business Development projects in Surrey….

    While the take-up is relatively limited, the incentives appear to be working….at least for some!

  • Joe Just Joe

    As you just stated Michael, the incentives are there for projects that might not have been built otherwise. That in itself is a problem. If the project wouldn’t have happened w/o the incentive then it’s clearly of questionably financial viability and something I prefer not to see my tax dollars subsidize.
    Please don’t get me started on STIR, you won’t find a bigger hater.
    We will have to agree to disagree on this topic. That said I truly wish Surrey the best of luck in it’s attempt to remake itself and I look forward to watching it’s transformation.

  • Michael Geller

    JoeJustJoe…in general, I am in full agreement, especially when it comes to ongoing subsidy dollars like those dished out by the federal and provincial governments to operating businesses…I abhor the industry addiction to such subsidies, which can be very significant. Just ask Paul Desmarais….

    But incentives such as density bonuses and deferred DCC’s and property taxes for limited periods of time have become the name of the game when trying to attract new job creating enterprises around the world.

    What the Surrey incentives highlight is the need for a more comprehensive regional economic development strategy to ensure that the various Metro municipalities are not always competing with one another to attract new businesses by offering larger and larger financial incentives…it’s one thing to try and get a business to locate here, rather than in Seattle or Calgary. It’s another to try and get it in Surrey, rather than Burnaby or Delta, or Vancouver. But that’s what is happening now.

    I don’t have the answers other than to say that people in Surrey are very motivated to attract new businesses…especially in and around the emerging town centres; and I think the Vancouver Economic Development Commission should be paying careful attention…because even though Vancouver City Council vetoed new residential development in the area surrounding the CBD last year, to ensure adequate space for new commercial developments, I’m told that to date, there has not been one new application in the area.

    That’s the dilemma.

  • In the Valley

    I remember another time and economic strategy whenFiberglass Canada came to town enticed bya 10 year municipal tax break. The Mayor and MLA got reelected but after 10 years the plant closed, moved production to Oregeon, and left a vacant plant and unemployment in the community.

    Municipal tax breaks don’t work

    One opinion

  • Bill Lee

    Another advantage for Surrey is that it can be a counterflow to commuters. Driving to Surrey in the morning and back in the evening is easlier than the other, more common commute.

    And the Yuppies can continue to live their shallow lives in Vancouver with good jobs in Surrey.

  • Feesto

    Question for M. Geller – Since you’re so involved with Surrey, can you please give us a few examples of new commercial development in Surrey that have taken advantage of these tax, DCC and permitting incentives?

  • michael geller

    Feesto…there are a number of applications currently in the approval process. I’m checking with staff to find out which ones can be made public at this time…

  • Joe Just Joe

    I’m sure there are a few that are taking advantage of the current incentives, one I know of is Anthem’s upcoming project at Hwy 10 and 15.
    What would be a better question is what projects are going ahead only because of the incentives that we wouldn’t have seen otherwise.