The 'Ville Voice header image 1

Greg Fischer’s Company Got Big Tax Incentive

July 29th, 2011 by jake · 7 Comments

What? Your local paper did a story about Greg Fischer’s company – Dant Clayton – getting a fat taxpayer incentive of $1.19 million and it didn’t bother mentioning it was, you know, the mayor’s company?

Four companies were approved for state and local tax incentives Thursday based on plans to bring a total of 107 jobs to Louisville.

The Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority approved the incentives, which the companies can collect over a period of 10 years if they meet wage and hiring goals.

— Dant Clayton Corp., a manufacturer of bleachers and other sports seating, may add 72 jobs paying an average hourly wage of $23, according to state documents. The company, founded in 1979 and headquartered in Louisville, was approved for a total award of $1.19 million.

Hrm.

And before you complain? Yes, he’s still a part of the company.

Tags: Business · Courier-Journal · Greg Fischer · Oops

7 responses so far ↓

  • 1 K2 // Jul 29, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    As an employee of Dant Clayton, I KNOW he sold his share nearly 2 months ago. Please use something better than an old not updated site to reference.

  • 2 jake // Jul 29, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    The Secretary of State’s website updates nearly instantly. It’s up to Fischer and Dant Clayton to issue corrections to oversight.

    And this tax deal started well before Greg Fischer sold what he owned.

    Nice spin, though.

  • 3 Linda // Jul 29, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    The link to the SOS page has a list at the bottom of filings of Dant Clayton. The last thing filed was a Merger Agreement. On page four, paragraph 9 (a), Fischer’s shares are immediately upon the execution of the agreement converted into a “right” to demand $500K case and a promissory note for more than $2 million. Not saying he made the demand he has a right to make, but that’s what the Merger Agreement says–basically Fischer’s shares in Dant Clayton were not transferred to shares in the new merged corp like everyone else’s were. Just because he is no longer a shareholder does not mean he is not still involved in the company, as the SOS site lists him as a Director; you can be a Director and not have shares.

    Not defending Fischer or saying all of this is completely kosher (not saying it isn’t, either), and Jake’s point is well-taken that this had been brewing before May 2011.

  • 4 Eileen // Jul 29, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    Tax incentives for PLANNING to add jobs? They MAY add 72 jobs paying an “average” hourly wage of $23?

    So if they actually add 10 new jobs, with 9 of them paid minimum wage and the other pulling in a $350,000 salary, that would count–if they even had to do it at all; the tax incentives for a possibility, not a contract. Maybe they could find some really talented 25-year-old high school graduate who is the EXACT leader they need to make that company the BEST company in America and pay him (it would have to be a white guy) the $350k. Then the college grads can compete for the other 9 minimum wage jobs and get laid off when the kid runs the company into the ground in two years. But of course Dant Clayton will keep the $1.9 mill, because that’s based on plans (possibilities, even) rather than performance.

    No wonder Louisville is called the Possibility City–the only actuality is that the taxpayers always get screwed, and who would put that in the marketing materials?

  • 5 jake // Jul 29, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    More to my point: This has nothing to do with Dant Clayton, whether the company got special treatment or even if it’s solid in this community (it is and likely deserves that incentive).

    It’s about the paper not mentioning that it is/was Fischer’s company.

    I waited a day to mention it, thinking the web version would be updated or corrected and that the print version would indicate Fischer’s involvement. Since no update/correction was made, I thought I’d bring it up.

  • 6 Ace HAt // Aug 1, 2011 at 12:23 am

    T_R_A_N_S_P_A_R_E_N_C_Y….thats a term the admin & the C-J don’t Understand!

  • 7 Steve Magruder // Aug 1, 2011 at 11:42 am

    I agree with Jake that the various issues around this aren’t the point. That the C-J wouldn’t mention the mayor’s relation to the company is either an example of really bad reporting/editing or that the editorial board is hamstringing the reporting staff via a new Mayoral Protectorate.

google

couk