emeraldthree

You know how the movie business works, so I guess you agree with my statements then.

Yes, Connecticut is quite busy with films, TV shows, commercials, etc. The difference is Connecticut's proximity to New York City. Projects are either produced out of New York City or LA. Connecticut has a decent tax incentive, but it is the fact that producers can shoot in Stamford or Norwalk and still live at home that is the reason a producer chooses to shoot in Connecticut. It also means that crews won't need housing, a big draw on a movie's budget, since the crew will all be local New York, New Jersey, Connecticut crew. The type of project that shoots in Cleveland or Pittsburgh is usually produced out of LA, meaning the producers and some of the crew are from LA. Believe it or not, fewer and fewer movies are shooting in LA these days, only TV shows and commercials (because they are stage dependent). This is because increasing local logistical costs have made LA shooting more cost prohibitive and tax incentives have removed the economic barriers to destination shooting. The types of projects shooting in Cleveland and Pittsburgh also differ from those that shoot in Connecticut or New York in that a producer knows he or she can't take over an entire city block in New York, where the building vacancies and drastic population difference in Cleveland mean they can. That is why we aren't competing with Connecticut, but are competing with Pittsburgh for film projects. And the competition has a big leg up on us because of Pennsylvania's $80 million tax incentive cap.

What people fail to realize is the tax incentive is an agreement to forgo 30 percent of payroll and other tax in order to lure the film to the state. It is not State Budget money that would have been spent on something else. It is an agreement for the State to accept 70 percent of what it would normally accept in taxes for certain film expenditures within the state. The incentive means the state gets 70 percent of taxes that would never come to the state otherwise. Ohio agreed to forgo between 25 and 30 million in taxes for the projects that came here in 2010 and 2011. The Avengers alone spent more than that in the State. The Avengers spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on gas alone. The films that shot in Cleveland spent $5.3 million just in hotel rooms. Think about all the food the crew members in those hotels (as well as the local crew members) had to buy while they were there. Think about the supplies they bought at hardware stores, the cars they parked in parking garages, the offices, warehouses, and construction shops they rented, the trucks, vans, and cars they rented, and on and on. Think about all the ancillary expenditures that result from the film's presence in the state. There are large amounts of capital that are infused into the local economies in which the film operates. Ohio's greatest competition for film dollars is currently Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh is just 2 hours away by car from Cleveland, yet there is 2 to 3 times the numbers of films being made there now. Their industry is a year round business because their state has an $80 million tax incentive cap instead of Ohio's $20 million cap. Granted some of that incentive is used to lure films to Philly, but Pittsburgh has at least as many jobs going there. Pittsburgh's only advantage over Cleveland is the tax incentive, but because the incentive is large enough to ensure year round filming, they also have equipment and truck rental houses that provide added tax dollars to the state. It also means crew stay in Pittsburgh and pay taxes there year round. The major tax incentive states like New Mexico and Louisiana keep renewing their tax incentives because they have been tremendously successful in attracting investment in projects to their states. New York state may be the most effective example of why Ohio should increase the tax incentive cap. New York had a health film industry before they launched their tax incentive. 7 or 8 years ago, the tax incentive took effect and the number of productions doubled. It was a $385 million cap that produced $2.3 billion in tax revenue. Subtract tax revenue that existed before the tax incentive (approx $1.2 billion) and you see the real impact the tax incentive can have on an economy. Will Ohio ever come close to that kind of tax reward? No. But to write off the film tax incentive as a non starter because it doesn't produce revenue for the state is simply not acknowledging the facts. Writing off the film tax incentive because its corporate welfare or subsidizing the rich is naive because its not the rich actors and producers seeing that money, its the crew who would otherwise have to live elsewhere. The way movies are made has changed over the last 20 years, but tax incentives are nothing new. In the 80's, anything that could be cheated for New York City shot in Toronto. In the 90's, it was Hungry and other Eastern European countries. Films shot anywhere where Government tax incentives and weak unions made lower budgets possible. The bottom line is the budget of the movie is limited by the projected gross at the box office, rentals, and television. Its a business, its not welfare for stars. Before making a uninformed blanket statement like "welfare for the rich," people should take the time to see the real and significant economic impact the film tax incentive would have if the cap was increased. Above and beyond the economic impact is the PR benefit Ohio can enjoy from hosting these films. Ohio hosted the biggest budgeted movie (possibly of all time) to film in 2011. Pictures of the filming ran, not only locally, but nationally. Pictures in the New York Daily News that portray Cleveland in a good light are worth something. After all, Cleveland is alway going to be known as the place where "Christmas Story" was shot. That was 30 years ago and its still a topic of discussion (in a good way). That is worth something. Back then the film business was structured differently. A mid sized budget film like that could shoot in Cleveland. The way films are shot today, there will be no present day "Christmas Story" without the tax incentive. I could understand fiscal ineffectiveness outweighing the PR value if the film tax incentive did not pay for itself, but continuing such an impotent film tax incentive when the real numbers prove how much can be gained economically does not make good business sense. Ohio has gone half way. Does it have the good business sense to ensure the tax incentive is a success by increasing the cap? I hope so.