Stafford Chemical, Inc.

The following post has two assignments namely;

1.Stafford Chemical, Inc.

Stafford Chemical, Inc. is a privately held company that produces a range of specialty chemicals. Currently, its most important product line is paint pigments used by the automobile industry.
Stafford Chemical was founded more than 60 years ago by Phillip Stafford in a small town north of Cincinnati, Ohio, and is currently run by Phillip’s grandson, George Stafford. Stafford has more
than 150 employees, and approximately three-quarters of them work on the shop floor. Stafford Chemical operates out of the same plant Phillip built when he founded the company; however, it has
undergone several expansions over the years.
Recently, a Japanese competitor of Stafford Chemical, Ozawa Industries, announced plans to expand its operations to the United States. Ozawa, a subsidiary of a large Japanese industrial company,
decided to locate a new facility in the United States to better serve some of its customers: Japanese automobile manufacturers who have built assembly plants in the United States.
The governor of Ohio has been particularly aggressive in trying to persuade Ozawa Indus- tries to locate in a new industrial park located about 30 miles from Stafford’s current plant. She has
expressed a willingness to negotiate special tax rates, to subsidize workers’ training, and to expand the existing highway to meet Ozawa’s needs. In a recent newspaper article, she was quoted as
Making the concessions I have proposed to get Ozawa to locate within our state is a good business decision and a good investment in our state. The plant will provide high-paying jobs for 400 of our
citizens. Furthermore, over the long run, the income taxes that these 400 individuals will pay will more than offset the concessions I have proposed. Since several other states have indicated a
willingness to make similar concessions, it is unlikely that Ozawa would choose our state without them.
George Stafford was outraged after being shown the governor’s comments.
I can’t believe this. Stafford Chemical has operated in this state for over 60 years. I am the third generation of Staffords to run this business. Many of our employees’ parents and grandparents
worked here. We have taken pride in being an exemplary corporate citizen. And now our governor wants to help one of our major competitors drive us out of business. How are we supposed to compete
with such a large industrial giant? We should be the ones who are getting the tax break and help with workers’ training. Doesn’t 60 years of paying taxes and employing workers count for something?
Where is the governor’s loyalty? It seems to me that the state should be loyal to its long-term citizens, the ones who care about the state and community they operate in—not some large industrial
giant looking to save a buck.


1. How valid is George Stafford’s argument? How valid is the governor’s argument? Is Stafford Chemical being punished because it was already located within the state?
2. How ethical is it for states and local governments to offer incentives to attract new businesses to their localities? Are federal laws needed to keep states from competing with one another?
3. Does the fact that Ozawa is a foreign company alter the ethical nature of the governor’s actions? What about Ozawa’s size?
4. What are George’s options?

2. Environmental studies and Forestry

Respond to the following posting:

The 2017 hurricane season started off extremely quiet, until August 25. Several named storms began circling around the Atlantic Ocean and eventually made their way into the Gulf of Mexico.
Emergency Operating Centers from Florida to Texas were on high alert as Hurricane Harvey made its way to the United States Gulf Coast. He decided to make landfall in the areas around Houston.
Hurricane Harvey landed as a category 4 storm with sustained winds of 130 mph, releasing over 50 inches of rainfall, affecting over 13 million people, damaging/destroying over 35,000 homes, over 1
million cars and the lives of 82 people (Huber, Klinger, O’Hara, 2017).

Three days after Hurricane Harvey made landfall, immense flooding was occurring in most areas of Houston. Many residents of the area were concerned of the two reservoirs that are in the northwest
areas of Houston would fail. These two reservoirs, the Barker and Addicks reservoirs were built by the federal government in the 1940’s for the purpose of collecting excess rainwater and sparing
Houston from flooding (Collier, Satija, 2017). However, after the storm had stalled and released so much rainfall, many residents in Houston were afraid of the reservoirs breaking.

August 28, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Harris County Flood Control and the City of Houston made the hard decision to begin releasing water from the reservoir as it was filled. They released
the water, knowing that nearby homes would be affected (Lemault, 2017). In the watershed areas of the Barker and Addicks reservoirs, there are 93 subdivisions. This was not an easy decision for
those in charge. Either they control the flooding, or risk the reservoirs breaching. The released water filled up a nearby bayou, Buffalo Bayou, flooding homes that were not in danger of flooding
from the hurricane.

Due to this matter, many homes and businesses have filed lawsuits against the City of Houston and the Harris County Flood Control. They are seeking compensation for repair costs for their property,
decrease in property value, loss of income both personal and business (PR, 2017). These cases are very similar in nature to those of Hurricane Katrina victims, in that many homes and businesses
that were flooded and/or destroyed were in ruin due to levee failures. This is a similar case in which people were affected due to mitigation efforts that were put to extreme tests by circumstances
that were unavoidable. The release of these waters could end up costing billions of dollars in compensation for flooding victims

find the cost of your paper

Related Post