Print This Post Print This Post

Dec

12

Will willies give way to depression now that Rolls plant goes to VA & MMK may have connections to Iran?


Remember last spring? When State Rep. Bill Batchelder got the willies about the pension divestment bill, HB 151 that was being pushed by freshmen State Rep. Josh Mandel and Shannon Jones? Because Batchelder was afraid such a stance would convince companies like, oh, say, Rolls Royce – which has connections to Iran Sudan, to pass on Ohio as a location for its jet propulsion engine plant? And he helped get the bill tabled?

This evening, Mark Naymik intimates in this Openers post that the mystery company that is considering investing in Southwestern Ohio was never Rolls, which has announced that it’s rolling its new jet engine plant to Virginia (according to Naymik, RR says VA has a better education system; oy). Instead, he writes,

Strickland said in a June Cleveland City Club speech that an unnamed company would invest $2 billion in the state. At the time, Rolls-Royce was believed to be the unnamed company. It was not the one. MMK Steel is the big tease.

But guess what? MMK may have connections to Iran as well. Has anyone spoken with Rep. Jones lately? Or maybe, with the NIE saying that Iran halted its nuclear aspirations in 2003, the divestment movement is derailed? I doubt that, but how does all this fit in? If the benefit to MMK is great enough, would they not care about Ohio lawmakers wanting to force pensions to divest of MMK stock, if its held by the pensions? Would those lawmakers really be okay with MMK locating to Ohio, if MMK has business relations with Iran?
Maybe not at all, I’m sure at least a few good people out there will say. But I’m too cynical to accept that just yet.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:27 pm December 12th, 2007 in Blogging, Business, Economy, Foreign Affairs, Government, Ohio, Politics, Statehouse 

Comments

4 Responses to “Will willies give way to depression now that Rolls plant goes to VA & MMK may have connections to Iran?”

  1. 1 Scott Pullins on December 13th, 2007 11:47 am

    Hey Jill, thanks for picking this info up. I’ve been writing about it myself. Here’s some of my stuff:

    According to yesterday’s Cleveland Plain Dealer, Virginia’s superior education system was the reason that Rolls Royce decided to take their money to the commonwealth instead of investing it here. I wrote about the details a while back here http://pullinsreport.com/2007/11/21/scott-pullins-fisher-strickland-let-a-big-fish-slip-away.aspx

    I’m calling bullfeathers. I don’t believe it for a minute. Most likely the decision had more to do with taxes, regulations, closeness to DC, and Virginia’s right to work status. Meanwhile, Jill over at Writes Like She Talks posits another interesting theory.

    Nonetheless, my hometown here for going on fifteen years is out even more high paying jobs, along with an investment of over $300 million. And state officials, according to the PD, have nothing to say.

    Earth to Team Strickland/Fisher. This was a big deal that you let slip away.

    Scott Pullins, Esq.
    Publisher,
    The Pullins Report

  2. 2 Jill Miller Zimon on December 13th, 2007 3:37 pm

    Thanks for the link, Scott. Regardless of it being Strickland/Fisher who is in charge, I would think that RR was on Taft’s radar too, no?

  3. 3 Johnny Springfield on December 13th, 2007 6:02 pm

    Rolls Royce’s public posture is they chose Virginia because Ohio’s education system wasn’t up to their standards. Sixteen years of Republican rule is coming home to roost. Barbash at Development says its because Virginia has a “deep water” port and we don’t – plausible and obvious.

    Let’s recall that Honda went to Indiana a while back, also saying Ohio’s education system couldn’t produce the quality/quantity of workers they need.

    If MMK bails on us because of the stupid bill by Jones and Mandel to force pension funds to disinvest from our “enemy de jour,” it will be the kind of rejection that ought to tell Republicans that their policies, ideological and backward as they are, have and will continue to make Ohio less attractive to others who have many other site-locations options to choose from.

    It’s politically convenient to think our onerous regulations and paperwork, etc. are disincentives to locate in Ohio because it furthers the talking points of Republicans that we need fewer government regulations and few taxes in order to make Ohio so attractive that business will beat a new path to our door. Of course, this erroneous thinking is wrong.

    But what ever the real reasons or dynamics were for RR to not say “yes” to Ohio, the reality is that we if hope to land any big, new business in the foreseeable future, policies of intolerance, be they fiscal or social, are bad for business.

  4. 4 Jill Miller Zimon on December 14th, 2007 5:26 pm

    Johnny – I agree with your position for the most part. But to play devil’s advocate, what would you say to people who say that the dilution of values (or something like that) by embracing diversity etc. causes us to stray from core values and that it’s that straying that makes Ohio undesirable (I don’t believe that but I think there are factions within the state that do).

Leave a Reply




"));