Apple pays $138 million for 43-acre building plot in San Jose tech corridor

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 32
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    Apple is gobbling up all this real estate but the stock is being priced at zero earnings growth. I'm in it for the long term but I think that's nuts.



    Would be great if Apple simply bought up the entire city area they're in and "unincorporated" (?) from the city of Cupertino. They could then set the charter, laws and local taxes to benefit them instead of the local "leaders".

  • Reply 22 of 32
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    Would be great if Apple simply bought up the entire city area they're in and "unincorporated" (?) from the city of Cupertino. They could then set the charter, laws and local taxes to benefit them instead of the local "leaders".




    Not going to happen. The only way they can dissolve the corporation is if the City of Cupertino becomes insolvent and in that case they still would not be able to govern themselves because the governing responsibility would be transferred to the next higher administration which would be Santa Clara County and then by the State of California.

  • Reply 23 of 32
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Apple is gobbling up all this real estate but the stock is being priced at zero earnings growth. I'm in it for the long term but I think that's nuts.


    Would be great if Apple simply bought up the entire city area they're in and "unincorporated" (?) from the city of Cupertino. They could then set the charter, laws and local taxes to benefit them instead of the local "leaders".

    Earlier you were questioning what another poster meant by "knee-jerk libertarianism". I think if you analyze what you just posted, you will see a fine example.
  • Reply 24 of 32
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,053member
    sog35 wrote: »
    I can't imagine what else this could be besides a car R&D campus.

    Can't believe how dumb Wall Street is.  If I had more money I would have bought more stock at $118.  Those Wall Street clowns who sold at $118 and $117 today probably bought the stock at $130 a weeks ago. And those same clowns will buy the shares again when it hits all time highs in a few weeks/months.  No wonder index funds beat 90% of the mutal and hedge funds.
    i just bought 200 more shares befor the market closed at $118.15. I disregard the WS clowns, but trust my feeling.
  • Reply 25 of 32
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     



    Yeah me too. I wonder which current automaker would manufacture Apple cars. I think all the high quality ones would refuse. How about Hyundai or Kia so the Koreans can steal all their IP. 


     

    They could use contract manufacturers. That's the way of the future. They design, amass the key tech, IP and dev capital and get someone, like Magna, to assemble/build to spec. That's right up Apple's alley :-).

  • Reply 26 of 32

    Apple bought the two northeastern pieces.

    It could be for an automobile assembly plant.

    Imagine: "Designed in Cupertino based on a Bavarian framework and assembled in San Jose".

     

  • Reply 27 of 32
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    quinney wrote: »
    Earlier you were questioning what another poster meant by "knee-jerk libertarianism". I think if you analyze what you just posted, you will see a fine example.

    There's nothing knee-jerk about it. I've held a consistent point of view on these matters for years. Apple would be better served by controlling their destiny and politics is a wildcard.
  • Reply 28 of 32
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    quinney wrote: »
    Earlier you were questioning what another poster meant by "knee-jerk libertarianism". I think if you analyze what you just posted, you will see a fine example.

    There's nothing knee-jerk about it. I've held a consistent point of view on these matters for years. Apple would be better served by controlling their destiny and politics is a wildcard.

    The "knee-jerk" metaphor refers to the routine medical test where a physician taps a patient on a spot near the knee and the patient's leg kicks out immediately and involuntarily, showing how well the nerves in that area are functioning. The above article is about Apple purchasing a tract of land for unknown purposes. For most people, the response to reading the article is to speculate on what Apple may be planning to do with the land. For you, the immediate response is to express your longing for Apple to isolate itself from the community where the land is located, and where a lot of its employees reside, and where it sells its products, and which provides a number of valuable services, all to try to reach your fantasy utopia. Your long-held consistent point of view manifests itself in this unusual, but truly reflexive, response. It's like the doctor taps you on the knee and your leg doesn't move, but you bray like a donkey.
  • Reply 29 of 32
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    quinney wrote: »
    The "knee-jerk" metaphor refers to the routine medical test where a physician taps a patient on a spot near the knee and the patient's leg kicks out immediately and involuntarily, showing how well the nerves in that area are functioning. The above article is about Apple purchasing a tract of land for unknown purposes. For most people, the response to reading the article is to speculate on what Apple may be planning to do with the land. For you, the immediate response is to express your longing for Apple to isolate itself from the community where the land is located, and where a lot of its employees reside, and where it sells its products, and which provides a number of valuable services, all to try to reach your fantasy utopia. Your long-held consistent point of view manifests itself in this unusual, but truly reflexive, response. It's like the doctor taps you on the knee and your leg doesn't move, but you bray like a donkey.

    Oh, please. ???? It isn't unreasonable for a company that is well known for wanting to control every aspect of their business to apply that to other things which affect their business.

    Do you hold the same bizarre criticism for the boys at Google? Larry Page wondered out loud not so long ago if Google should move to an island, isolated from interference.

    http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/15/larry-page-wants-earth-to-have-a-mad-scientist-land/
  • Reply 30 of 32
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,652member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     



    Not going to happen. The only way they can dissolve the corporation is if the City of Cupertino becomes insolvent and in that case they still would not be able to govern themselves because the governing responsibility would be transferred to the next higher administration which would be Santa Clara County and then by the State of California.




    There is somewhat of a precedence for this though.   When Disney bought into Florida to build Disney World, they did set up some kind of self-governing authority.   Now Florida does have far fewer regulations than California, and Disney built four decades ago, but it shows that it is possible. 

     

    From Wiki:

    Quote:


     After extensive lobbying, the Government of Florida created the Reedy Creek Improvement District, a special government district that essentially gave The Walt Disney Company the standard powers and autonomy of an incorporated city.


    ...


    it was explained that for Disney World, including EPCOT, to succeed, a special district would have to be formed: the Reedy Creek Improvement District with two cities inside it, Bay Lake and Reedy Creek, now Lake Buena Vista. In addition to the standard powers of an incorporated city, which include the issuance of tax-free bonds, the district would have immunity from any current or future county or state land-use laws. The only areas where the district had to submit to the county and state would be property taxes and elevator inspections.[3] The legislation forming the district and the two cities was signed into law by Florida Governor Claude R. Kirk, Jr. on May 12, 1967. The Supreme Court of Florida then ruled in 1968 that the district was allowed to issue tax-exempt bonds for public projects within the district, despite the sole beneficiary being Walt Disney Productions.


    ...


    At its founding the park occupied approximately 30,500 acres (12,343 ha; 48 sq mi). Portions of the property have since been sold or de-annexed, including land now occupied by the Disney-built community of Celebration. Now the park occupies 27,258 acres (11,031 ha; 43 sq mi),[8] about the size of San Francisco, or twice the size of Manhattan.


  • Reply 31 of 32
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

     



    There is somewhat of a precedence for this though.   When Disney bought into Florida to build Disney World, they did set up some kind of self-governing authority.   Now Florida does have far fewer regulations than California, and Disney built four decades ago, but it shows that it is possible. 


    Great info. I still think it would almost impossible for Apple to get a similar arrangement in California. For one thing, Apple's properties are not contiguous, or even all in the same city or county and they are not considered a landmark, public space or a tourist destination. Their properties are located in a highly developed area as well, unlike the open land that most likely comprised the Disney land purchase. It would also offer no benefit for the State of California or City of Cupertino to recommend this as might have been the case for Florida in the Disney situation.

Sign In or Register to comment.