Williams: How may workers do your p

Williams: How may workers do your people estimate will be employed in the temporary plant?
Elliott: Roughly 1,200, possible a few more.
Williams: I presume it would be fair, then, to say that, including spouses and children, something on the order of 4,000 people will be attracted to the community.
Elliott: I certainly would not be surprised.
Williams: If I understand the situation correctly, this plant closed just over eight years ago, and that closing had a catastrophic effect on Plainville. Isn’t it true that a large portion of the community was employed by this plant?
Elliott: Yes, it was far and away the majority employer.
Williams: And most of these people have left the community, presumably to find employment elsewhere.
Elliott: Definitely, there was a drastic decrease in the area’s population.
Williams: Are you concerned, then, our company can attract the 1,200 employees to Plainville from other parts of New England?
Elliott: Not in the least. We are absolutely confident that we will attract 1,200-even more, for that matter virtually any number we need. That, in fact, is one of the chief advantages of this proposal. I would think that the community would be very pleased to have us there.
Williams: On the contrary, I would suspect the community will rue the day we arrived. Beyond that, though, this plan is totally unworkable if we are candid. On the other hand, if we are less than candid, the proposal will work for us, but only at great cost to Plainville. In fact, quite frankly, the implications are appalling. Once again, I must enter my serious objections.
Elliott: I don’t follow you.
Williams: The temporary plant would employ some 1,200 people. Again, this means the infusion of over 4,000 to the community and surrounding areas. Byte Products, however, intends to close this plant in three years or less. If Byte informs the community or the employees that the jobs are temporary, the proposal simply won’t work. When the new people arrive the community, there will be a need for more schools, instructors, utilities, housing, restaurants, and so forth. Obviously, if the banks and local government know that the plant is temporary, no funding will be made to available for these projects and certainly no credit for the new employees to buy homes, appliances, automobiles and so forth.
If, on the other hand, Byte Products does not tell the community of its ‘temporary” plans, the project can go on. But, in several years when the plant closes (and we here have agreed today that it will close), we will have created a ghost town. The tax base of the community will have been destroyed: property values will decrease precipitously; practically the whole town will be unemployed. This proposal will place Byte Products in an untenable position and in extreme jeopardy.
Elliott: Are you suggesting that this proposal jeopardized us legally? If so, it should be noted that the legal department has reviewed this proposal in its entirely and had indicated no problem.
Williams: No! I don’t think we are dealing with an issue of legality here. In fact, don’t doubt for a minute that his proposal is altogether legal. I do, however, resolutely believe that this proposal constitutes gross responsibility.
I think this decision has captured most o my major concerns. These along with a host of collateral problems associated with this project lea me to strongly suggest that you and the balance of the board reconsider and not endorse this proposal. Byte Products must find another way.