Economic Development Is Important. Reckless Economic Development Is Not.

The recent social media comment defended Riverside’s decision to provide nearly $5 million in incentives to South Korean EV charging company Chaevi:

“Solid decision by City and Council. Chaevi is investing millions in Riverside. Is another company bringing jobs, tax revenue and economic growth? We should all be supporting businesses in Riverside.”

I respect the person who made this post and I agree with one sentence.

We absolutely should support businesses in Riverside.

The problem is that Riverside leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that it prefers chasing the newest headline over supporting the businesses that have already invested decades in our community.

That is not economic development.

That is political theater.

Riverside Has Earned a Reputation for Poor Due Diligence

Let’s begin with an uncomfortable reality.

This is the same City Council that:

• Recently accepted the resignation of its City Manager after years of controversy while approving a substantial severance package.
• Has struggled repeatedly with Charter Officer hiring and oversight.
• Continues to face criticism over transparency and public accountability.
• Is asking taxpayers for more money while claiming financial hardship.
• Has repeatedly waived transparency requirements and competitive processes whenever a politically attractive project appears.
  

When an organization has this kind of governance history, it should become more conservative with taxpayer resources—not less.

Instead, Riverside appears determined to gamble.

Nearly $5 Million Before the Company Has Proven Itself Here

The City approved:

• Approximately $1.96 million to purchase 45 public DC fast chargers.
• Approximately $3 million in Riverside Public Utilities rebates funded from Low Carbon Fuel Standard reserves.
  

That is nearly $5 million in public support.

Supporters point out that these are not General Fund dollars.

That misses the point entirely.

Every public dollar has an opportunity cost.

Nearly $5 million devoted to one speculative venture is $5 million unavailable for:

• infrastructure,
• electric reliability,
• underground transmission,
• existing business incentives,
• public safety priorities,
• or assistance for companies that have been paying Riverside taxes for decades.
  

What Is Riverside Actually Receiving?

Supporters frequently mention Chaevi’s announced $100 million U.S. expansion.

Notice the wording.

The original Memorandum of Understanding was non-binding and specifically stated that it created no legal financial obligation and that future agreements would require separate City Council approval.

That means taxpayers are spending real money today.

The promised investment remains dependent upon future business success.

Those are not equivalent risks.

Chaevi Is Not Yet a Proven U.S. Success Story

This isn’t criticism of Chaevi.

It is simply recognizing business reality.

Chaevi appears to have built a respectable charging network in South Korea and is attempting to enter the American market.

But the U.S. EV charging market is already dominated by established competitors with nationwide networks.

Compared to those companies, Chaevi’s American presence remains extremely small.

Reports indicate:

• roughly $59 million in annual revenue,
• an operating loss,
• approximately 115 chargers sold in the U.S. during 2024,
• essentially no meaningful U.S. market share.
  

Every successful company starts somewhere.

But taxpayers should recognize the difference between investing private capital and risking public resources.

Private investors assume that risk voluntarily.

Government should be much more cautious.

Riverside Bears Significant Downside Risk

Supporters keep discussing potential upside.

Let’s discuss downside.

What happens if:

• U.S. expansion stalls?
• EV charging demand changes?
• Federal incentives change?
• New technology overtakes today’s charging platforms?
• Another manufacturer captures market share?
• Chaevi ultimately relocates or downsizes?
  

Taxpayers still purchased nearly $2 million in equipment.

The City still spent another $3 million in incentives.

The risk belongs to Riverside taxpayers.

Where Is the Competitive Process?

Perhaps the most troubling aspect is the waiver of competitive bidding.

Competitive procurement exists for one simple reason:

To protect taxpayers.

Competition answers questions such as:

• Was this the best price?
• Was this the best technology?
• Was there a better maintenance package?
• Were there stronger financial guarantees?
• Could another company have delivered better value?
  

Instead, Riverside largely bypassed that process because negotiations were already underway under the earlier MOU.

Good government welcomes competition.

It does not avoid it.

What About Riverside Companies?

This is the question that bothers me most.

Where are the incentives for businesses that have spent decades here?

Where are the special agreements for:

• manufacturers already employing Riverside residents,
• local technology firms,
• family-owned businesses,
• industrial employers,
• companies that stayed during recessions,
• businesses that continued paying taxes even when Riverside government became increasingly difficult to work with?
  

Many local businesses have remained loyal to Riverside for twenty, thirty, even fifty years.

They don’t receive international press conferences.

They don’t receive overseas photo opportunities.

They simply continue paying taxes and employing our neighbors.

If Riverside has millions available for economic development, perhaps those businesses should be first in line.

Economic Development Should Be Earned

I support attracting new employers.

I support foreign investment.

I support manufacturing.

I support creating jobs.

But I also support accountability.

If Riverside wishes to provide substantial incentives, they should include measurable protections such as:

• minimum employment guarantees,
• claw-back provisions if commitments are not met,
• local hiring requirements,
• revenue-sharing when public assets generate profit,
• independent performance audits,
• transparent reporting to taxpayers.
  

Taxpayer investment should produce taxpayer returns.

Riverside Has a Pattern

This decision does not stand alone.

It reflects an increasingly familiar pattern.

City Hall becomes excited about the newest project:

• another announcement,
• another press conference,
• another ribbon cutting,
• another international trip,
• another social media victory.
  

Meanwhile, long-term structural problems remain:

• deteriorating infrastructure,
• rising pension obligations,
• financial instability,
• governance failures,
• and declining public trust.
  

Those issues are far less glamorous.

But they are the City’s actual responsibilities.

We Should Support Businesses…

The original comment ended with:

“We should all be supporting businesses in Riverside.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Let’s start with the businesses that have already supported Riverside.

The companies that stayed.

The companies that hired local workers.

The companies that paid taxes year after year without asking taxpayers to subsidize their business plans.

Economic development isn’t about chasing the newest shiny object.

It is about building lasting prosperity.

Riverside deserves an economic development strategy built on due diligence, transparency, measurable return on investment, and loyalty to the businesses that have already demonstrated loyalty to Riverside.

Until City Hall learns that lesson, taxpayers will continue assuming the risks while politicians collect the photo opportunities.