Wrong on film credit II
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, April 28, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
As an extra on at least four or five films since my retirement as an Allegheny County probation/parole officer two years ago, I have seen firsthand the large amounts of money spent by film companies locally. Nearly everyone I met was local: film crew, extras, caterers, laborers, etc. And, of course, there are payments for use of buildings and hotels.
So, I read with interest Colin McNickle's column “Cut through the film tax credit fiction” (April 21 and TribLIVE.com). His opinions, and the researcher he cites, do nothing to override information from Dawn Keezer, Pittsburgh Film Office director, who has correctly noted “quantifiable, audited economic impact” on the region of more than $100 million in each of the past three years.
McNickle states: “The ‘race' against other states' incentive programs to attract productions creates a never-ending battle; it's an arms race with your wallet — a race to the bottom.'”
I read the Trib often but usually skip the Opinion pages; I suspect the Opinion staff are big supporters of Gov. Tom Corbett. Through Corbett's leadership, Pennsylvania is the only state that does not tax fracking profits. Certainly, that is “a race to the bottom.”
I guess McNickle thinks that's fine for big-profit, big-polluting gas companies, but not for the film industry.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Funding priorities questioned
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Ukraine & history
- Proven success
- Shredded Wheat & ‘Low T’
- Saved her life
- Stalin, Hitler, now Putin