Let me get this straight. They have been out of compliance for almost five years?

Yes, they have been in violation of the "Spirit" of the agreement for over 5 years. However, the contract is written such that there are no penalities unless the employment dropped below 75% of the 750 jobs promised. So, AT&T was not in "Default" until their employment dropped below 562.5.

Though the story doesn't say when they dropped below this magic number, if they were at 604 in '06 and 303 in November '09, I would guess they have been in default since late 2007 or 2008.

This employment curce also blows up the "they were having a hard time filling positions in a tight labot market" excuse. They started cutting staff in 2005-06, well before the job market got overheated in 2007-08.

The timing of the downsizing is more in line with the purchase of AT&T by SBC in early 2005 (the buyer retained the purchased company name in this one). Which says at best, the ED money slowed the pull out, but as the abatements got smaller (i.e. less than 100%) the downsizing picked up.

It's kind of like the prelude to a bad divorce, one spouse is hanging around bleeding the other spouse's money until it isn't worth it to stick around anymore. All the while, they checked out the relationship years ago.

The MRT still hasn't distinguished between the clawback floor (750 jobs) in the loan agreement and the floor (approx. 560 jobs) in the tax abatement agreement.

I, of course, point this out for purely selfish reasons. I noted the difference in a comment to Ospurt's July 2009 post on this topic; my comment was widely received with guffaws.

That is true Bon. As I said back then, nobody has produced the "forgivable loan agreement" for posting online, but it wouldn't surprise me if the terms are different from the tax abatement.

The story also centers on the City's clawback, but if they are in violation of the abatement agreement with the City, they are also in violation with the College, Hospital and County, so all of the taxing entities are due money. (save MISD which is limited in their ability to participate in these types of tax abatements)

In our July back-and-forth it was a surprise to you because you stated that you doubted ATT could be in breach of one agreement and not the other (by virtue of differing job requirements in the agreements).

But, yes, you were clear you didn't know because you hadn't seen the loan agreement.

Regardless, ATT apparently isn't even close on either contract.

Gee Whiz ! Seven months we've been carping about this issue and almost all that has been carped about has been true !

Not bad for a bunch of "Aginers' !

At last we hear the official cry of "DOH!" from our city leaders as they circle their wagons and will plead "We wuz fooled agin!" and "How could this have ever happened?".

Perhaps now they will take the time to closely look at the joke that is our bus system , that has been discussed here for years .

Then again , who wants to take advice from a bunch of "Aginers" ! Even if they are "Dead-On !

This is all quite amusing.

This very evening I was explaining the MDC to another Midland resident. I was prompted to do so because I was standing in the proximity of the MDC's "booth" at the airport. If you have not seen it, across from Gate 3, MDC has set up their sales booth, touting the benefits of locating your company in Midland. The Entrada is mentioned as is the Entrada Park, but no specific mention of the empty building our tax dollars erected at the airport. On their map, the Entrada al Pacifio is now shown as an approximately 50-mile-wide swath through the Big Bend country from Presidio to here. "Live Midland" is also touted as one of the reasons to locate here. A couple of passersby shook their heads but the majority of those coming off the same full SWA plane I did ignored the booth.

I suspect that there are few venues to actually use the booth these days and so setting it up at the airport made sense to someone.

I have a little background with the specification of trade show portable booths. When you gaze upon the MDC booth, taking up space at the airport (rent-free, I am sure), you are looking at probably fifty thousand of your tax dollars. It is a very nice, high quality booth.

End the tax. Close the accounts. Refund our money. And sell the booth.

[Or at least use a correct sales pitch at the booth: "MDC: We will 'loan' you money that you don't have to pay back and we will reduce your taxes even if you don't honor our contract."]