Amicus Curiae Brief — DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno

basis for a challenge of a state’s policies on dormant

Commerce Clause grounds. Matters such as these should be

left to the legislature, and if sufficient members of the public

are unhappy with the policies, the appropriate recourse is to

be found at the ballot box, not at the courthouse. Hence,

particularly for challenges to tax policies on dormant

Commerce Clause grounds, the plaintiff should be required

to allege some particularized and specific basis of injury.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Washington Legal

Foundation respectfully urges this Court to decide that (1) the

economic incentives granted by Ohio in the form of

investment tax credits that can be used prospectively do not

violate the dormant Commerce Clause and (2) the Plaintiffs

herein lacked proper standing to bring an action challenging

Ohio’s tax policies on grounds that it was inconsistent with

the dormant Commerce Clause.

Respectfully submitted,

J. Pat Powers

Baker & McKenzie, LLP

660 Hansen Way

Palo Alto, California 94304

(650) 856-5526

Daniel J. Popeo

David Price

Counsel of Record

Washington Legal Foundation

2009 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 588-0302

December 5, 2005

APPENDIX A

State Credit/Incentive Type Reference

Alabama “Alabama Enterprise Ala. Code § 41-23-20

Zone Act” Incentive et. seq.; § 40-18-190

Tax Credits et seq.

Alaska Mineral Mining Alaska Stat. §

Exploration Incentive 27.30.010 et seq.

Tax Credit

Oil and Gas Exploration | Alaska Stat. §

Incentive Tax Credit 38.05.180; Alaska

Stat. § 41.09.010 et

seq.

Arizona Enterprise Zone Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.

Employment Incentive | § 41-1521 et seq.;

Tax Credit Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.

§ 43-1161

Arizona Research and Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.

Development Incentive | § 43-1168

Tax Credit

Arkansas Biotechnology Ark. Code Ann. § 2-8-

Development and 101 et seq.

Training Incentive Tax

Credit

“Emerging Technology | Ark. Code Ann. § 15-

Development Act” 4-2103 et seq.

Incentive Tax Credit

A-2

California California Research and | Cal. Rev. & Tax.

Development Incentive | Code § 23609

Tax Credit

Enterprise Zone Hiring | Cal. Rev. & Tax.

Incentive Tax Credit Code § 23622.7

Colorado Enterprise Zone Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-

Investment Incentive 30-103 et seq.

Tax Credits

Connecticut Connecticut Research Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-

and Experimental 217}

Expenditures Incentive

Tax Credit

- Enterprise Zone Conn. Gen. Stat. §§

Incentive Tax Credits 12-217e, 12-217v

Delaware Delaware Research and | Del. Code Ann. tit. 30,

Development Incentive | § 2070 et seq.

Tax Credit

District of “Economic D.C. Code §§ 6-1501,

Columbia Development Zone 6-1504, 47-1807.04,

Incentives Act” Tax 47-1808.07

Credits

Florida Enterprise Zone Fla. Stat. § 290.007

Incentive Tax Credits

Georgia Georgia Research and | Ga. Code Ann. § 48-

Development Incentive | 7-40.12

Tax Credit

Hawaii High Technology Haw. Rev. Stat. §

Business Investment 325-110.9

Incentive Tax Credit

Hawaii Research and Haw. Rev. Stat. §

Development Incentive | 325-110.91

Tax Credit

A-3

Idaho Idaho Research and Idaho Code Ann. §

Development Incentive | 63-3029G

Tax Credit

“The Idaho Corporate Idaho Code Ann. §

Headquarters Incentive | 63-2901 et seq.

Act of 2005” Tax

Credits

Iilinois Illinois Research and 35 Ill. Comp. Stat.

Development Incentive | 5/201(k)

Tax Credit

Enterprise Zone 35 Ill. Comp. Stat.

Investment and Hiring | 5/201(f); 35 Il.

Incentives Tax Credits | Comp. Stat. 5/201(g)

Indiana Indiana Research and Ind. Code §

Development Incentive

Tax Credit 6-3.1-4-1 et seq.

lowa lowa Research and Iowa Code §

Development Incentive | 422.33(5)

Tax Credit

Enterprise Zone Iowa Code § 15A.9;

Incentives Tax Credits | lowa Code § 5E.191

et seq.; lowa Code §

15E.232

Kansas Kansas Research and Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79-

Development Incentive | 32,182b

Tax Credit

Kentucky Kentucky Research Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §

Facilities Construction | 141.395

Incentive Tax Credit

Louisiana Louisiana Research and | La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §

Development Incentive | 47:6015

Tax Credit

A-4

Maine Maine Research and Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.

Development Incentive | tit. 36, § 5219-K

Tax Credit

Maryland Maryland Research and | Md. Code Ann. Tax-

Development Incentive | Gen. § 10-721

Tax Credit

Qualified Business Md. Code Ann. Tax-

Expansion and Hiring Gen. § 10-704.8; Md.

Incentive Tax Credit Code Ann. Tax-Prop.

§ 9-230

Massachusetts | Massachusetts Research | Mass. Gen. Laws ch.

and Development 63, § 38M

Incentive Tax Credit

Michigan Michigan Mich. Comp. Laws §

Pharmaceutical 208.39f

Research Incentive Tax

Credit

Renaissance Zone Mich. Comp. Laws §§

Incentive Tax Credits 125.2686, 208.39b

Minnesota Minnesota Research and | Minn. Stat. § 290.068

Development Incentive

Tax Credit

Mississippi Manufacturers’, Miss. Code Ann. § 27-

Distributors’ and 7-22.5

Merchants’ Qualified

Property Incentive Tax

Credit

“Mississippi Broadband | Miss. Code Ann. § 57-

Technology 87-5

Development Act”

Qualifying Equipment

Investment Incentive

Tax Credit

A-5

Missouri Expanded Business Mo. Rev. Stat. §§

Facilities Incentive Tax | 135.100, 135.150,

Credit 135.155

Missouri Research and | Mo. Rev. Stat. §

Development Incentive | 620.1039

Tax Credit

Montana Montana Research and | Mont. Code Ann. §

Development Incentive | 15-31-150(1)

Tax Credit

Nebraska Enterprise Zone Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-

Incentive Tax Credits 2734.03

New Community N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §

Hampshire Reinvestment and 162-N:1 et seq.; N.H.

Opportunity Zone Rev. Stat. Ann. § 77-

Incentive Tax Credits A:5, XII; N.H. Rev.

Stat. Ann. § 77-E:3-a

New Jersey New Jersey Research | N.J. Stat. Ann. §

and Development 54:10A-5.24

Incentive Tax Credit

New Mexico | Enterprise Zone N.M. Stat. § 7-2A-15

Incentive Tax Credits (1978)

New York Qualified Emerging N.Y. Tax Law §

Technology Company | 210(12-E)

Employment Incentive

Tax Credit

North “William S. Lee Quality | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-

Carolina Jobs and Business 129.2 et seq.

Expansion Act”

Incentive Tax Credits

North Dakota | North Dakota Research | N.D. Cent. Code § 57-

and Development 38-30.5

Incentive Tax Credit

A-6

Oklahoma Enterprise Zone Okla. Stat. 62 § 690.4;

Incentive Tax Credits Okla. Stat. 68 §

2357.81

Oregon Oregon Research and Or. Rev. Stat. §

Development Incentive | 317.152

Tax Credit

Enterprise Zone Or. Rev. Stat. §

Incentive Tax Credits 285C.406; Or. Rev.

Stat. § 285C.400; Or.

Rev. Stat. § 317.124;

Or. Rev. Stat. §

315.507

Pennsylvania | Pennsylvania Research | Pa. Stat. Ann. 72 §

and Development 8701-B et seq.

Incentive Tax Credit

Rhode Island | Rhode Island Research | R.I. Gen. Laws § 44-

and Development 32-3

Incentive Tax Credit

South South Carolina S.C. Code Ann. § 12-

Carolina Research and 6-3415

Development Incentive

Tax Credit

Corporate Income Tax | S.C. Code Ann. § 12-

Moratorium For Job 6-3365

Creation

Tennessee Jobs Creation Incentive | Tenn. Code Ann. §

Tax Credit 67-4-2109(c)(2)

Texas Texas Research and Tex. Tax Code Ann. §

Development Incentive | 171.722

Tax Credit

Jobs Creation Incentive | Tex. Tax Code Ann. §

‘Tax Credit 171.751 et seq.

Utah Utah Research and Utah Code Ann. § 59-

Development Incentive | 7-612

Tax Credit

Vermont Vermont Research and | Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, §

Development Incentive | 5930w

Tax Credit

Virginia Virginia Research and | Va. Code Ann. § 58.1-

Development Incentive | 439.14

Tax Credit

Major Business Facility | Va. Code Ann. §

Jobs Creation Incentive | 58.1-439

Tax Credit

Washington Job Training Incentive | Wash. Rev. Code §

Tax Credit 82.04.4333

Washington Research Wash. Rev. Code §

and Development _ 82.04.4452

Incentive Tax Credit

West Virginia | West Virginia Research | W. Va. Code § 11-

and Development 13R-1 et seq.

Incentive Tax Credit

Wisconsin Wisconsin Research and | Wis. Stat. § 71.28

Development Incentive

Tax Credit

* | Development Zone Wis. Stat. §

Incentive Tax Credits 71.28(1dx)

Be) @) FLED

Nos. 04-1704, 04-1724

=BEES- 2005

In The , OFFICE OF THE CLEP

Supreme Court of the Unites Staees oo

¢

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP, et al.,

Petitioners,

Vv.

CHARLOTTE CUNO, et al.,

Respondents.

and

WILLIAM W. WILKINS,

Tax Commissioner etc., et al.,

Petitioners,

V.

CHARLOTTE CUNO, et al.,

Respondents.

S

On Writs Of Certiorari To The

United States Court Of Appeals

For The Sixth Circuit

¢

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN,

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

¢

EDWARD M. THOMAS

Wayne County

Corporation Counsel

*MELVIN BUTCH HOLLOWELL

ALLEN BROTHERS, PLLC

Attorneys for Wayne County

400 Monroe St., Ste. 220

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 962-7777

Attorneys for Petitioners

*Counsel of Record

~--

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964

OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

- ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

RS Ce FR CE I vctcstrtnccncncsccnansivnseceosssoncsonses il

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE.......0..........cceseesseeeees 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE......................cccccccssceeceeees 2

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. ....0000........cccescccsccceceeeeeees 3

TE vateradestiebisiintthieiinitdainiaipinuisiiiasiiitnccigiiitiabindas 5

I. THIS COURT DOES NOT SIT AS A SUPER-

LEGISLATURE DECIDING STATE POLICY,

THUS, RESPONDENTS CANNOT INVOKE

THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE

POLICY ON THE STATES ..................cccsccseeees 5

II. RESPONDENTS LACK STANDING TO CHAL-

LENGE OHIO’S TAX CREDIT STATUTE BE-

CAUSE RESPONDENTS’ INJURIES ARE

CONJECTURAL AND NOT LIKELY TO BE

REDRESSED BY A FAVORABLE DECISION... 9

Ill. THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HAS MISAPPLIED

LONGSTANDING PRECEDENT IN THE AREA

OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AS THE TAX

INCENTIVES PROVIDED BY OHIO, AND BY

JURISDICTIONS LIKE WAYNE COUNTY DO

NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON

INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IN VIOLATION

OF THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE.... 12

i ik a tk 15

I I iii ell siasidnseiieionte 15

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

ASARCO v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (1989)... eee 10

Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm’n, 429

Ss ED woinssierstilibinopsentinnpitiieteseneninaiii 11, 12, 13, 14

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Department of Treasury, 488

ee IIs GIIIITE cncintiiigecriniatosiincveidiaieapenncsapaeiumindn 14

Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc., 154 F. Supp. 1196 °

TN ccich icsish cicpncniniheeatdaocaicsdiladealiiaspadsictledenidiasiatibiadbbadsaseai 2,3

Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc., 386 F.3d 738 (6th

SI MIU cists cissnreuhesenthciniaptariensActaricbesaihtemndinsiepsialiiiaetadaieniniciialanieiies 3

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 126 S. Ct. 36 (2005)......... 3

DeShaney v. Winnebago Co. Dep't of Social Services,

ee: ED iibicksnnccsnsaticcatnicilticdcincdiiedgnidibiipptendipseintinisibioen 2

Day-Brite Lighting v. State of Missouri, 342 U.S.

SD IIIS llc sitshacnadliiseneiebeiiciaabdideniosiiensiaiagdialttbe duinabiciaihiilinignans 5

Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952)................ 5

H.P. Hood & Sons v. DuMond, 336 U.S. 525 (1949)......... 12

James v. Strange, 407 U.S. 128 (1972) ...... eee 5, 6

Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004)..........c0cseese000: 9,11

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).....9, 10

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)...................c.c00ee 15

Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View, 395

ee ee I in:issleilidh nicibuistiiietiiabiebisakcninaaalthcciniidnisdi sain 5

CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES

Se ny Ct OO inci ncscchisbinnsmmmnsisinbiiedtioneson 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES -— Continued

Page

I aU passim

Ie I Ri 2

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE'

Wayne County is the largest county in Michigan, with

a population of over two million. It was once headquarters

to all of “The Big Three.” Petitioner DaimlerChrysler is

headquartered in an adjacent county. Wayne County is

still headquarters to Ford Motor Co. and General Motors

Corp. Many of the Big Three manufacturing facilities,

along with the facilities of Petitioner DaimlerChrysler

Corp., are located in Wayne County, in part, because of tax

incentives enacted by both the Michigan legislature and

Wayne County government.

Wayne County, has the power to levy property taxes

and the power to enact tax incentives like the incentives

being challenged in this case. (Wayne County Charter,

§ 5.181). Not surprisingly, given Wayne County’s promi-

nence in the world’s automotive and manufacturing

history, it is the policy of Wayne County to capture and

encourage industrial and economic growth.

Wayne County has a vital interest in assuring that

disgruntled citizens, such as Respondents, not be allowed

to use the courts to overrule the legislative and policy

decisions of duly elected lawmakers. If the decision of the

Sixth Circuit is allowed to stand in this case, persons from

inside and outside the jurisdiction — regardless of injury or

motive — will have the imprimatur of this Court to attack

the self-governance principles inherent in a republican

form of government. The separation of powers requires

' Under Supreme Court Rule 37.6, amicus curiae state that no

counsel for a party has written this brief in whole or in part, and no

entity or person, other than the amicus curiae, has made a contribution

to the preparation or submission of this brief

2

that Respondents — and, indeed, all citizens — effect policy

decisions through their elected officials, and net through

the Court.’

+

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In 1998, Toledo, Ohio - which is only 20 miles from

the southern border of Wayne County — and two local

school districts provided a $281 million tax incentive to

DaimlerChrylser to encourage it to continue its manufac-

turing presence in those communities. The Ohio statutory

scheme permitting the investment tax credit was enacted

“to encourage industrial investment and development in

Ohio, particularly in economically troubled areas.” Cuno v.

DaimlerChrysler, Inc., 154 F.Supp. 1196, 1198, 1201

(2001). The Ohio economy like Michigan’s is heavily

reliant on the manufacturing and automobile industries,

and has suffered through an exodus of jobs.

Respondents, plaintiffs below, filed a law suit chal-

lenging the constitutionality of the incentives under the

Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the

United States Constitution. Respondents are individual

residents of Ohio, individual residents of Michigan, two

Ohio small businesses, and one not-for-profit Ohio corpo-

ration. Respondents do not allege any specific injury as a

result of the Ohio investment tax credit statute but,

rather, seek to “free all the states from the necessity of

engaging in escalating competition over incentives that

deprives all of them of needed revenues, while gaining a

* See DeShaney v. Winnebago Co. Dep't of Social Services, 489 U.S.

189, 203 (1989).

3

meaningful competitive edge for none.” (Op. Cert. at 6).

Respondents further argue that investment tax credits are

bad public policy (Op. Cert. at 6).

The United States District Court for the Northern

District of Ohio found that the challenged statute’s pur-

pose “constitutes a legitimate state interest that clearly

has a rational nexus” to the tax credit. Jd. at 1201. The

court found that “[nJotwithstanding Plaintiffs’ innovative

arguments” Ohio’s investment tax credit does not violate

the Commerce Clause. /d.

A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Sixth Circuit held that the investment tax credit statute

(Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5733.33) is unconstitutional under

the Dormant Commerce Clause of the United States

Constitution because “the tax credit involves state regula-

tion of interstate commerce through its power to tax” even

though the investment tax credit “is equally available to

in-state and out-of-state businesses.” Cuno v. Daimler-

Chrysler, Inc., 386 F.3d 738, 743, 746 (6th Cir. 2004). The

court did not address standing.

This Court granted certiorari and directed the parties

to brief the following question: whether Respondents have

standing to challenge Ohio’s investment tax credit, Ohio

Rev. Code Ann. § 5733.33. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

126 S. Ct. 36 (2005).

¢

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

I

This Court does not sit as a “super-legislature” to

second-guess the desirability of statutes. The states may,

4

“within extremely broad limits,” experiment with different

economic philosophies. Thus, even if this Court were to

find Ohio’s tax statutes unwise or ineffective, this Court is

still obligated by the Constitution to tolerate what it may

regard as a legislative mistake. Founded in 1796, before

Michigan was admitted to the Union, amicus Wayne

County’s experience is that tax incentives are both effec-

tive and necessary. Wayne County maintains that it is

good government to utilize tax resources for economic

viability.

II

Respondents lack standing to challenge the constitu-

tionality of Ohio’s tax incentive statutes because Respon-

dents have not suffered an “injury in fact” as a result of

those statutes nor is it likely that their alleged grievances

would be redressed by a favorable decision of this Court.

Ill

The Sixth Circuit has misapplied longstanding prece-

dent in the area of interstate commerce, as the tax incen-

tives provided by Ohio, and by jurisdictions like Wayne

County do not constitute an undue burden on interstate

commerce, in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.

+

5

ARGUMENT

I

THIS COURT DOES NOT SIT AS A SUPER-

LEGISLATURE DECIDING STATE POLICY,

THUS, RESPONDENTS CANNOT INVOKE

THIS COURT’S JURISDICTION TO IM-

POSE POLICY ON THE STATES

The question before this Court is not whether the

Ohio tax incentive statute is wise or unwise, desirable or

undesirable. James v. Strange, 407 U.S. 128, 133 (1972).

Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S.

337, 339 (1969). The question before this Court is not what

economic philosophy Ohio should or should not embrace.

Id. The question before this Court is not whether Ohio’s

statute is effective or ineffective. The sole question before

this Court is whether the statute is constitutional. James,

407 U.S. at 133.

This Court has repeatedly held that it does not sit as

“a super-legislative body.” Sniadach, 395 U.S. at 339. Day-

Brite Lighting v. State of Missouri, 342 U.S. 421, 423

(1952). But, rather, “state legislatures have constitutional

authority to experiment with new techniques ... [and]

they may within extremely broad limits control practices

within the business-labor field so long as specific constitu-

tional prohibitions are not violated.” Jd. Indeed, this Court

need not concur in those legislative policies to hold the

enactments constitutional. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342

U.S. 580, 590 (1952). Judicially this Court is obligated by

the Constitution to tolerate what it may regard as a

legislative mistake. Jd. Misguided laws may nonetheless

be constitutional. James, 407 U.S. at 133.

6

Thus, it is Respondents’ considerable burden to prove,

not that tax incentive statutes are unwise, but that they

are unconstitutional. Jd.

A. Tax Incentives Are Vital to Wayne County’s

Economy

Wayne County is the largest county in the State of

Michigan and the eleventh largest in the nation. It is

comprised of 44 cities, including Detroit. It is historically,

and culturally fused with the automobile industry and

heavy manufacturing. There have been thoughtful efforts

to diversify the economy by working to attract and develop

business growth in high technology, service, tourism,

entertainment, and health care industries. But Wayne

County is the home of the automobile. Wayne County’s

citizens work in its factories, and Wayne County’s economy

rises and falls with the number of cars purchased by

consumers.

For 30 years Wayne County’s economy has been in

serious decline. Its unemployment rate of six percent is

the highest in the nation. A recent study conducted by the

Initiative for a Competitive Inner City, indicates - that

. Wayne County’s largest city, Detroit, lost more jobs be-

tween 1995 and 2003 than any other large American city.

Detroit has 400,000 fewer jobs today than it had in 1970.

As a result of these economic challenges, Wayne

County and other similarly situated municipalities have

needed to employ a strategy to assist the businesses that

are already located in Wayne County and to attract new

ones. One of those strategies is providing tax incentives to

those businesses in return for job creation.

Michigan Public Act 198 of 1974 allows a 50 pertent

reduction in local property taxes to businesses for the

renovation expansion, or new construction of manufactur-

ing plants in Michigan. Wayne County is eligible to grant

abatements under this statute, and has done so with

success. Overall, this program has resulted in the creation

of 500,000 new jobs and the creation of 1.3 million jobs

throughout Michigan.

Michigan Public Act 328 of 1998 is targeted at “dis-

tressed” communities, abating all (100%) new personal

property taxes in designated geographic areas. Wayne

County has taken advantage of this for businesses within

its boundaries.

Michigan Public Act 146 of 2000, known as the obso-

lete Property Rehabilitation Act, encourages the redevel-

opment of obsolete buildings by freezing taxes on the

property for up to 12 years.

Tax Increment Finance Authority Districts have been

established in Wayne County to capture and re-invest

taxes for the development of projects such as Ford Field,

home of the Detroit Lions, and the Detroit Tigers’ Stadium

known as Comerica Park. Both stadiums have created

thousands of jobs in the county and metro region.

Other tax incentives have been employed with success

by Wayne County, such as the “Brownfield” program which

encourages the development of sites that are contraindi-

cated. Up to $1 million in credits are available.

A newer program created by the state, called the

Michigan Economic Growth Authority, provides tax incen-

tives for development in the areas of high technology and

research and development.

8

These programs are the life-blood of Wayne County's

job retention efforts. Wayne County must be able to utilize

these tools to survive in an increasingly tough economic

climate.

Many business, which are automotive suppliers or

automotive related, would prefer to be physically proxi-

mate to the auto companies based in Wayne County. Being

close to the customer provides economies of scale for

distribution and supply. But these suppliers and automo-

tive related companies, which form the backbone of Wayne

County’s job base, will locate elsewhere if the overall cost

of doing business is lower elsewhere. Taxes are not the

only factor, but they are certainly a key factor.

The use of tax incentives to preserve Wayne County’s

job base is not an abstract economic theory, it is a means

to assist County citizens from the crisis of losing a job, and

the devastation that flows from it including lost homes,

health care, and the ability to buy groceries.

Wayne County is, therefore, committed to utilizing

these tax incentives as one effective tool in preserving its

economic base and way of life.

There are a number of factors that a company takes

into account when deciding whether doing business in a

particular locale makes sense. Some of those factors

include: the availability of workers; the opportunity to

grow; the regulatory environment; competition; access to

health care; location; and taxable costs of doing business.

There are other important, non-bottom line factors which

are considered, such as quality of life issues.

It is Wayne County’s economic development experi-

ence that the taxable cost of doing business rates high on