ognition of the 1,000 jobs LivingSocial has created already, LivingSocial should be expected to continue growing in the District to claim the full subsidy package. Third, LivingSocial should be required to pay back a portion of the tax breaks it receives if the company leaves in less than 10 years. If the goal of keeping LivingSocial here is to attract other companies, that won’t work if LivingSocial itself doesn’t stay. Fourth, the city should scale back the size of the subsidy per job to something more reasonable. Finally, DC should expect LivingSocial to provide greater community benefits. The company should commit to the number of summer job program participants it will hire, the number of DC businesses it will work with, and the number of software developers it will train. It would be even better if LivingSocial would commit to working with local institutions, like the University of the District of Columbia or the Community College, for some of its training programs, to increase the chances that DC residents can be put on a pathway towards employment with the company. LivingSocial officials have made clear that they want to be in DC and continue to grow here. That’s good news for the District’s economy, and it may make sense for the city to offer something to LivingSocial in return. But like any good consumer knows, the District shouldn’t take this deal unless it is guaranteed something good in return. Boadi and Lazere are staff at the DC Fiscal Policy Institute (www.dcfpi.org), which conducts research on tax and budget issues that affect low- and moderate-income DC residents. H
capitalcommunitynews.com H 51