Jack Porter Voted No on Project Mango, Here’s Why

Jack Porter Voted No on Project Mango, Here’s Why

Last week the Blueprint Intergovernmental Agency voted 11-1 to move forward with a $2.6 million incentive package for an economic development project labeled “Project Mango.”

City Commissioner Jack Porter was the only elected official to vote no. Provided below are her comments from the Blueprint meeting explaining her vote.

Support Local, Fact-Based Journalism with
a $50 Annual TR Subscription

City Commissioner Jack Porter’s Comments on Project Mango

  • I have a couple of points, it’s always a lot more fun to say yes than it is to say no, but I cannot support this project.
  • A couple of reasons, one it feels super rushed to me without enough time for public input, although I do understand there will be other opportunities as the project moves forward, which I can see that it likely will.
  • Some other points as well, you know there’s been a lot of time to study these kinds of local incentives and Brookings Institute and other reputable institutions have a lot of data on this that shows you know 75% of these kinds of incentives do not affect a business’s decision about location.
  • About 10 to 30% of new jobs go to residents who. ….are not already employed and that’s so in one sense there’s not as much of a net job increase because they’re coming from other sectors.
  • I don’t think the tax incentives are an effective way to boost employment. I support growth, I support diversifying our economy.
  • You know new transportation infrastructure, if we talk about the opportunity cost others ways we could be spending this money, gets a 10 to 5 times greater return on your investment in cities and counties that have done that.
  • I don’t think we have had to deliberate on what we can get from this in terms of whether you know the vehicles are going to be renewable, those kinds of questions that I think would be important to note.
  • I also just want to say I don’t really think $15 is a livable wage, but that being said I can see where where this is going, but I just wanted to make my position clear.

11 Responses to "Jack Porter Voted No on Project Mango, Here’s Why"

  1. At this time in her early venture into politics, Porter needs all the attention she can get. This singular “no vote” presented one of those opportunities and she jumped on it. Her vote was just that simple. Nothing more to see here. Move on.

  2. Porters still a leftist.
    Because she is disagreeable with the other leftists this time with words and her vote does not change the fact that Porter is a leftist.
    Porter may disagree with most people most of the time…who knows?
    A disagreeable leftist is still a lost soul and can never be relied upon to do the right thing when it matters.
    In this case Porter knew 100% that her 1 disagreeable vote would change nothing whatsoever.

  3. She is right about going slow, questioning the effectiveness of a public subsidies and recognizing the transportation needs that will result from a massive development on the fringe.

  4. WHAT? $15 an Hour is NOT a livable wage? I earn just under that doing 40 hours a week and I have a Mortgage on a very nice 3/2 Home, I own a NEW 2020 Car, I am doing some cool remodeling to my Home and I still have Money left over. I am happy too. I am Single which means I do not have a second Income to help out.

    You say “about 10 to 30% of new jobs go to residents who. ….are not already employed and that’s so in one sense there’s not as much of a net job increase because they’re coming from other sectors.” You are looking at this all wrong, YES, people will come from other Jobs to fill some of those jobs BUT, that means their Jobs just opened up for some one else to fill creating the same number of Jobs needing to be filled.

  5. First of all… thank you TR for following up on this. I think it’s vitally important for readers/voters to have the opportunity to better understand why an elected official voted one way or the other on a given issue. Unfortunately in today’s media environment, readers are left to their own media-manufactured partisan assumptions, or even worse, fed agenda-motivated diatribes and speculation by biased editors and pundits. That said…

    My reaction to Porter’s stated apprehensions are most in-line with Mike L on this. Notwithstanding the secrecy premise of the TBP, I believe that taxpayer input and support for such large ticket items is important. After the fact input is perfunctory at best.

    I’ve read some of the same studies Porter alludes to. I give her credit for doing her homework on that front. Most decision makers do not, opting to go the easier route and simply giving a nod to staff recommendations. Reagan’s “Trust but Verify” approach was/is spot-on. As I’ve noted before, the devil is in the details of these program agreements. An incremental incentive structure with clearly stated benchmarks and verifiable returns only serves to validate these types of programs. I stand on my earlier statement that the entire TBP concept needs an overhaul.

    As for her statement on tax incentives not being an effective way to boost employment… I’m glad to see that she agrees that the increase in unemployment benefits/incentive needs to be stopped in an effort to encourage people to go back to work. (sarcasm off)

    Transportation infrastructure impacts are also important, which brings to light the discussion on the location of such projects. These decisions impact the City’s existing CIP fund allocation and planning. There’s also the opportunity to address some of these concerns within a revamped TBP structure.

    I have no time for the warming globes debate. It’s complete nonsense to proclaim that using battery operated vehicles in Tallahassee will somehow have any discernible impact on our planet’s evolutionary path. The entire issue is nothing more than a ruse designed to tug on the emotions of the weak-minded and malleable, in order to collect votes and enrich a few players. For proof, you need to look no further than the Biden Sadministration’s destruction of our Nation’s energy independence, while boosting Russia’s. Like I always say; no matter how you arrange the letters D E M O C R A T… it will always spell HYPOCRITE.

    And with respect to $15 an-hour being a “livable wage”… this is yet another classic example of the Progressive concept of having a goal post on wheels. For years they’ve called for a $15 an-hour “livable wage”. And now that we seem to be edging closer to it, they move the goal post again. As always with the destructive Progressive ideology… the MO is, “Always more; Never Enough”

    … ok, I’m done… May God continue to bless and protect those who risk so much to serve and protect us and our Great Nation of Freedom and Liberty. Happy Memorial Day everyone… I’m cooking burgers and corn on the cob today, you? 🙂

  6. @Nick M,

    Your reasoning short-sighted

    The working conditions and benefits are better at the city and county plus there is room for advancement and better career opportunities.

  7. $15 isn’t a livable wage, but it’s more than what a lot of State, County AND City employees start at/currently make.

  8. She made some good points until she started dictating how much they had to pay and what they had to drive. She’ll have to work on that…

  9. I think she gave some very good answers and reasons and put a lot of thought into this. I give her an A+. Good for her!

  10. So basically, screw Tallahassee and it’s citizens! Same mentality as our federal leaders. Elections have consequences and I sure wish the residents of the City would realize that before continuing to vote for these Progressive candidates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.