If it is up to the will of a global corporation that practices a quasi-religious marketing cult for its products and otherwise avoids the public eye, then it should probably go like this: Apple agrees with the real estate agency of the Free State of Bavaria (Imby) on the conditions for the takeover of a state property on Seidlstraße, the state parliament approves the deal in a non-public session, followed by jubilant choirs from the state and city governments with the tenor: “Munich as an IT location consolidates its place among the best in the world”. But it shouldn’t be like that.
A weighing of many arguments may lead to the conclusion that it is right for Apple to get the property. But these aspects should be discussed publicly. Apple may not like that, but it has to put up with the Munich location.
The group could make a start and make a few arguments of its own that go beyond a text on its website from a year ago about the decision to expand in Munich. Apple should not only explain more precisely and more actively what the company is doing here with how many employees – and how the city can benefit from it. The group, which is notorious worldwide for its tax avoidance strategies, should also explain whether Munich can expect significant trade tax revenue.
The Free State is responsible for some other arguments: It must give up its wall tactics and explain conclusively what it intends to do with properties in Munich that can be used for new purposes in the next five to ten years. If it turns out that a decent number of apartments will actually be added, then that should dampen the public unrest that is to be expected about the allocation of land to Apple. And if the Free State actually wants to allocate the area in question directly to Apple without a tender, the public has a right to know the reasons.
Under no circumstances should an impression be created: that politics is making itself docile to a global corporation.