FOX Moving to Georgia and Reno

Create New Tag

10/31/2018 3:19 PM

BRAIN reporting that FOX will move corporate headquarters/offices to Georgia and various Bike operations to Reno. Considering the size of their off-road/side-by-side biz and the price of land/rent in the southeast compared to NorCal, it seems logical enough.
-----------------
The company also announced record sales and plans to move its bike distribution, sales and service to Reno, Nevada.

SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif. (BRAIN) — Fox Factory announced Wednesday that it plans to relocate its corporate headquarters from California to it existing offices in Georgia by the end of this year. The company also plans to relocate its aftermarket bike products distribution, sales, and service operations from Watsonville and Scotts Valley, California to Reno, Nevada.

Fox said its existing offices in Scotts Valley will remain “an essential shared services facility housing certain corporate functions.”
----------- Full article https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2018/10/31/fox-factory-plans-move-headquarters-california-georgia ---------
|

10/31/2018 5:54 PM

Cost of doing business in California isn't getting any cheaper...

|

10/31/2018 10:32 PM

Nice job California. Drove another company away.

|

10/31/2018 11:51 PM

Nice location. Between Atlanta and all the mountains (northern Georgia).

Not pleased hearing that the NIMBYs in Cali are winning though...

|

11/1/2018 8:48 AM

Bet @Fitzy stays put. He ain't comin' back here is he?

|

11/1/2018 10:24 AM

Highest tax rates in the country, high minimum wage, tons of regulations, terrible traffic, super expensive real estate - what could possibly have motivated them to leave? Huh, its like states can compete against each other in a free market of business environments that will appeal to companies. Methinks we'll continue to see PR's like this across all industries.

|

11/1/2018 12:18 PM

Adam_Schaeffer wrote:

Highest tax rates in the country, high minimum wage, tons of regulations, terrible traffic, super expensive real estate - what could possibly have motivated them to leave? Huh, its like states can compete against each other in a free market of business environments that will appeal to companies. Methinks we'll continue to see PR's like this across all industries.

stop making all those logical points, its triggering me

|

11/1/2018 8:00 PM

ezmb wrote:

Nice job California. Drove another company away.

Nice job California? The simple cost of land/rent/lease causes these problems. Hopefully you're pointing the finger at greedy land owners and landlords and not "California"

|

11/1/2018 8:03 PM

Adam_Schaeffer wrote:

Highest tax rates in the country, high minimum wage, tons of regulations, terrible traffic, super expensive real estate - what could possibly have motivated them to leave? Huh, its like states can compete against each other in a free market of business environments that will appeal to companies. Methinks we'll continue to see PR's like this across all industries.

Tons of regulations......but then you include super expensive real estate......so, should they regulate real estate prices?
I get so annoyed with small-minded hypocritical assessments of politics like this.

|

11/1/2018 11:22 PM
Edited Date/Time: 11/2/2018 2:29 AM

Adam_Schaeffer wrote:

Highest tax rates in the country, high minimum wage, tons of regulations, terrible traffic, super expensive real estate - what could possibly have motivated them to leave? Huh, its like states can compete against each other in a free market of business environments that will appeal to companies. Methinks we'll continue to see PR's like this across all industries.

chrisingrassia wrote:

Tons of regulations......but then you include super expensive real estate......so, should they regulate real estate prices?
I get so annoyed with small-minded hypocritical assessments of politics like this.

I get annoyed by strangers on the internet using logical fallacies in an attempt to disprove an 'argument' I wasn't even trying to make. I made an objective observation about the way the world is. It's not my opinion that California has some of the most suffocating business regulations and a very expensive housing market. Those things are true. You were the one who found a way to get politically offended (I get it, elections next week, you're all fired up!). I made no mention of why those things exist, what (if anything) can be done about them, or if any of them may be related. I simply pointed out some things that any business would find limiting when considering location. We face similar struggles in WA/Seattle area.

Regardless of you pulling a Cathy Newman (so what you're saying is...), and regardless of the fact that Victor Davis Hanson has hours of content on these very topics (specific to Cal), I'm going to be a good sport and attempt to make sense out of the words you put into my mouth...

Why are you implying that we must choose between only regulating everything or nothing? Why couldn't housing market regulation potentially exist along side a reduction in business regulations? I'm not seeing how one limits the other.
Reducing business regulations (licenses, fees, long waiting periods to approve building/expansion) is about maintaining agility and competitiveness, while asking govt to be more efficient/accountable with the large sums of tax money they already collect. It allows companies to hire employees and invest in new products/services, etc. It shouldn't mean cutting back on environmental regulations. It means not shaking down businesses every chance they get because they couldn't stick to a budget.
Personally I don't think housing could be regulated en masse without crashing the entire economy in its current state. Too much of our wealth is built upon the value of real estate assets. Whether or not it should be is a different question, but its typically the most expensive thing a person will own. Obviously different parts of the world have different value/utility/resources/appeal, and as long as that's true then there will always be a market. To suddenly tell someone their land or house is no longer worth what it was (for the good of society) would be a disaster.
BUT, if one were to hypothetically explore it, I see housing market regulation as a potential way to counteract the displacement of low/middle income workers farther and farther away from urban areas containing decent jobs. They tried raising the minimum wage to keep low income workers in the city, but a rising tide lifts all boats and it maintained the wage/housing ratio for those near the bottom. Our cities need a huge range of workers, but if half of them have to commute 2-4 hours everyday, and we do that with a couple hundred thousand people, what does that do to traffic/infrastructure? Sitting in traffic is typically reported as one of the top stresses that people deal with. If you limit how expensive housing can get (not keeping it artificially low, just limiting how high it can get), then a broader range of income levels could afford to live closer to the city. This would reduce/eliminate commutes, encourage use of public transport, biking, walking, etc, thus reducing traffic and improving quality of life for everyone. It's likely that there will always be a broad range of income levels, so ideally we'd have a broad range of housing prices to match. I'm not saying its fair, ethical, or smart to implement housing regulation, but there is a case to be made for it in certain areas.

What solutions do you propose?


|

11/2/2018 1:55 AM

BRAIN just posted more details on the move:

SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif. (BRAIN) — Fox Factory, which announced Wednesday that it was moving its corporate headquarters to Georgia, shared more details Thursday about what that means for its bike-related operations.

The official corporate move from California to Georgia involves only a handful of top executives. Fox also plans to open a factory in Georgia to produce products for powered vehicles.

Fox's bike-related R&D, engineering, marketing and OEM sales will remain in Scotts Valley, California.

However, in a separate move announced Wednesday, bike-related functions that are currently in Fox's Watsonville, California, facility — U.S. aftermarket distribution, aftermarket sales and service — are being relocated to a new facility in Reno, Nevada. Fox's bike call center, currently in Scotts Valley, also is moving to Reno.

The move to Reno will allow Fox to service more of the West Coast with one- and two-day shipping, said Dan Robbins, Fox's senior director of corporate marketing, investor relations and government affairs. It also frees up the Watsonville facility for power sports product manufacturing.

Robbins said workers in Watsonville and in the call center in Scotts Valley were offered jobs in the Reno facility but he couldn't say how many employees will make the move. "This is not a move to reduce the size of our staff. We are growing. It will be a bigger facility in Reno," Robbins said. He said the Reno facility will be operating by spring.

Fox also operates an R&D and service facility in Asheville, North Carolina, that services retailers in the Eastern states.

|

Like bikes? Hit Vital up on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter.

11/3/2018 10:27 PM

Adam_Schaeffer wrote:

Highest tax rates in the country, high minimum wage, tons of regulations, terrible traffic, super expensive real estate - what could possibly have motivated them to leave? Huh, its like states can compete against each other in a free market of business environments that will appeal to companies. Methinks we'll continue to see PR's like this across all industries.

chrisingrassia wrote:

Tons of regulations......but then you include super expensive real estate......so, should they regulate real estate prices?
I get so annoyed with small-minded hypocritical assessments of politics like this.

Adam_Schaeffer wrote:

I get annoyed by strangers on the internet using logical fallacies in an attempt to disprove an 'argument' I wasn't even trying to make. I made an objective observation about the way the world is. It's not my opinion that California has some of the most suffocating business regulations and a very expensive housing market. Those things are true. You were the one who found a way to get politically offended (I get it, elections next week, you're all fired up!). I made no mention of why those things exist, what (if anything) can be done about them, or if any of them may be related. I simply pointed out some things that any business would find limiting when considering location. We face similar struggles in WA/Seattle area.

Regardless of you pulling a Cathy Newman (so what you're saying is...), and regardless of the fact that Victor Davis Hanson has hours of content on these very topics (specific to Cal), I'm going to be a good sport and attempt to make sense out of the words you put into my mouth...

Why are you implying that we must choose between only regulating everything or nothing? Why couldn't housing market regulation potentially exist along side a reduction in business regulations? I'm not seeing how one limits the other.
Reducing business regulations (licenses, fees, long waiting periods to approve building/expansion) is about maintaining agility and competitiveness, while asking govt to be more efficient/accountable with the large sums of tax money they already collect. It allows companies to hire employees and invest in new products/services, etc. It shouldn't mean cutting back on environmental regulations. It means not shaking down businesses every chance they get because they couldn't stick to a budget.
Personally I don't think housing could be regulated en masse without crashing the entire economy in its current state. Too much of our wealth is built upon the value of real estate assets. Whether or not it should be is a different question, but its typically the most expensive thing a person will own. Obviously different parts of the world have different value/utility/resources/appeal, and as long as that's true then there will always be a market. To suddenly tell someone their land or house is no longer worth what it was (for the good of society) would be a disaster.
BUT, if one were to hypothetically explore it, I see housing market regulation as a potential way to counteract the displacement of low/middle income workers farther and farther away from urban areas containing decent jobs. They tried raising the minimum wage to keep low income workers in the city, but a rising tide lifts all boats and it maintained the wage/housing ratio for those near the bottom. Our cities need a huge range of workers, but if half of them have to commute 2-4 hours everyday, and we do that with a couple hundred thousand people, what does that do to traffic/infrastructure? Sitting in traffic is typically reported as one of the top stresses that people deal with. If you limit how expensive housing can get (not keeping it artificially low, just limiting how high it can get), then a broader range of income levels could afford to live closer to the city. This would reduce/eliminate commutes, encourage use of public transport, biking, walking, etc, thus reducing traffic and improving quality of life for everyone. It's likely that there will always be a broad range of income levels, so ideally we'd have a broad range of housing prices to match. I'm not saying its fair, ethical, or smart to implement housing regulation, but there is a case to be made for it in certain areas.

What solutions do you propose?


Crickets. Imagine that

|