I agree 100%. Steve is absolutely right in saying that Cupertino should be the ones providing the free wi-fi with all the taxes Apple must be paying.
How typical of a government body to ask its people "what's in it for us?" instead of "what can we do for you?"
I'm glad to see other folks who understand this "what's in it for us" attitude those government folks have.
This following may be a rant, though it's good to understand how the cities work.
Apple does more than paying taxes. Each employee they have that lives and works (or just works in the city) do at least one of the following in the cities: pay rent/mortages, buys locally, pay sales tax, pay other forms of taxes, and so much more.
The reason the city council says "what's in it for us?" is likely because they don't have a business background to understand the net effect a new place like this will bring.
They want a "tangible" write us a huge check, pay a NEW tax. They don't understand that building this building will bring a lot of people to the city to infuse money into the city even during the construction. And even if they do understand they want "instant gratification."
Steve Jobs has them by the balls though, Apple can and have the resources to move out of the city and another city would be happy to get a fraction of what Apple provides to Cupertino.
Of course Apple avoids billions of dollars of taxation due to their offshores accounts, though the people that lose that the most is the federal government and state.
They think to themselves, "you guys make billions of dollars, I only make (likely a 6 figure income if they WORK for the city), I deserve more, you guys should give us more money because we can spend it better than you. We'll building useless buildings that WE want, for OUR retirements, we want these PARKS for our kids, we want government OWNED cars" etc.
I've lived and worked in a California city that had the same attitude on a business I worked with. While the economy was tanking, they spent money like it was free.
They purchased a new city hall, I believe it was over 7 million dollars. About 50% or more of the building is still EMPTY. They received a horrible deal, but whoever sold them the building made a lot of money (likely a shady dealing with the city manager).
The pay still goes up for the city workers. While many other companies are closing, they raise pay, an already inflated pay. The city manager, last I checked, makes 197,000. He rents an apartment in the city to show that he contribues to the city, but he lives in another city, owns a house there.
It's not in his best interest to see the city succeed. I've met the guy, and he is a total slimey guy, and his lawyers too.
The city council in Cupertino do seem like a joke as well. Same for the city I came from. A bunch of old people, and a mayor who the city manager has IN HIS POCKET, meaning the city manager controls them when the mayor and city council are suppose to DIRECT the city manager.
Likely the city manager benefits when they make a stupid decision like building a senior center. There was already an existing senior center that was BARELY to capacity, likely around 20% or less. Yes, lets spend a couple of million because the economy is so great and we have this new Wal-Mart.
Who does the building of the senior center benefit the most? Well since mostly old people vote and attend city council meetings, old people, the mayor, and city council folk (re-elected).
The city manager looks good and gets to keep his cushy high paying easy job. Whoever gets the building contract or renovation contracts benefits greatly too because the city overpays them, it's not the cities workers money, they won't be frugal. The building contract or renovation likely goes to friends of someone in the city, genius!
Here is where the tie in between Cupertino and the city I use to work in comes. The city I was from says "You want to expand your business in your city do you?
What's in it for us?"
Lets see, this is a small city and we employ a lot of people who LIVE here. Our business brings in a lot of people who SHOP in this city. We contribute to a lot of local organizations and purchase nearly everything we can find locally, locally.
"We want to impose a special tax on your business, we need to pay for our bad mistakes these last few years."
The city wants (and is at war with the business) to impose an additional 10%+ tax on the business. It's already been passed, and against a lot of state laws, and agreements. Hey, that's a little lower than the state tax.
--
Well of course it all works out this way when we look at the climate of many parts of California towards business.
Highest amount of lawyers in any state.
Employees are right, businesses need to prove themselves innocent.
ADA lawsuit lawyer needs to get approval from a judge to create lawsuits (he spams thousands of businesses with them, it's extortion really).
California is in massive debt and raising taxes, sales, state, etc.
People are leaving the state for other more business friendly state like Texas and Nevada.
Basically, it's to be expected that they are silly about "what's in it for us?"
They care about what they get, not what the city gets, not that this is a great revenue source or whatever other benefits they receive.