Ernest C. Pearson: No misuse of incentives in Corning case

Regarding the recent Under the Dome article regarding Corning Inc. moving its headquarters from Catawba County to Mecklenburg County and the state incentives involved:

It has routinely been the case that state incentives are never used to induce a company to move a facility from one county to another county within the state.

We monitor these matters, and the following is what occurred:

▪ The corporate headquarters in Hickory was in need of major renovations, likely exceeding the cost of a new facility.

▪ The company looked for locations in Catawba County, other regional counties, in South Carolina and also considered existing company facilities in other states.

▪ The company then considered whether to relocate the headquarters to Mecklenburg County or to South Carolina.

▪ The N.C. Department of Commerce offered incentives only for the new jobs that would be created and not for the 500 jobs that existed in Catawba County.

▪ The Department of Commerce offered substantially more incentives for the company to stay in Catawba County than if it located in Mecklenburg County.

▪ This assistance, along with other factors, caused the company to choose Mecklenburg County versus moving to South Carolina.

The state’s incentives programs are used in a common sense and effective way. This project was not a misuse of those programs.

This story was originally published January 12, 2016 at 4:35 PM with the headline "Ernest C. Pearson: No misuse of incentives in Corning case."