Amazon To Not Build 2nd HQ in New York

[realibrad]

I don't agree with these sorts of incentives at all. In fact I think one good thing we could do is pass a bill federally to eliminate the tax preference for state and local bonds, which would make handing these incentives out more expensive. That being said there's nothing special about the Amazon deal in this regard. If people wanted to eliminate these incentives why were there no complaints before? Because of that I doubt that's the real issue.

NPR and that NYT article both give credit to the wave that got AOC elected. From what it sounds like, they think that the wave sees this type of thing as companies getting richer while making the cities poorer.

 

[fskimospy]

NPR and that NYT article both give credit to the wave that got AOC elected. From what it sounds like, they think that the wave sees this type of thing as companies getting richer while making the cities poorer.

That's possible, but it's still not about her. I have not seen any evidence that she exerted meaningful influence on this local process/decision. She's just good clickbait these days.

 

[Genx87]

I a $3B tax break still costs the city money, because Amazon would expect and get services that should've been paid for by those taxes. Roads, utilities, public transit, schools, public safety personal, etc would all have to be improved or built.

The burden for these services would've been shifted from the company to their employees and the community at large.

The 3B tax break is on currently non-existent revenue. It isnt like Amazon is taking 3 billion out of the revenue account. They are getting a break on any potential new taxation. The ultimate cost is low to local govt. In the mean time 25,000 newly high paid workers arrive stimulating growth that increases tax revenues from other sources like property, income, and sales tax.

I will never understand why anybody would oppose a high salary venture like this if their goal is to stimulate growth. I can understand why they would oppose it if they didn't want to compete with Amazon for employees, or wanted to limit housing expansion, or keep their rent the same. But imo that is cutting off their nose to spite their face. Long term they will lose out.

 

[realibrad]

That's possible, but it's still not about her. I have not seen any evidence that she exerted meaningful influence on this local process/decision. She's just good clickbait these days.

She is super attractive, young, and willing to fight. She is going to sell a lot of stories.

 

[Genx87]

NPR was giving her credit for her not having support for it and that being part of the reason people did not like it.

Is there a good article that gives a rundown of what actually happened?

CNN has an article about how this Amazon situation is the fight for the democratic party. Of course who is the cover picture for the article?

 

[realibrad]

CNN has an article about how this Amazon situation is the fight for the democratic party. Of course who is the cover picture for the article?

Well, in that context its fair. She is leading the charge to push the Dems more Left. I mean, who else would they use, Bernie?

 

[fskimospy]

The 3B tax break is on currently non-existent revenue. It isnt like Amazon is taking 3 billion out of the revenue account. They are getting a break on any potential new taxation. The ultimate cost is low to local govt. In the mean time 25,000 newly high paid workers arrive stimulating growth that increases tax revenues from other sources like property, income, and sales tax.

I will never understand why anybody would oppose a high salary venture like this if their goal is to stimulate growth. I can understand why they would oppose it if they didn't want to compete with Amazon for employees, or wanted to limit housing expansion, or keep their rent the same. But imo that is cutting off their nose to spite their face. Long term they will lose out.

And pretty much everything Amazon was planning on taking advantage of is from programs that have existed for years to incentivize this sort of thing. If some other company is going to step into that area and develop it as Amazon was planning to then...well...why haven't they? So yes, the idea that this is $3b lost I think is based on thinking the city and state are actually giving them money as opposed to forgoing future revenue.

And again, to be clear I think all of these programs are bad. There is no valid economic reason to give big companies tax advantages over small ones just for existing in your town. That being said, they exist, and while they exist it seems like Amazon would be a particularly advantageous company to have in town. Too bad.

 

[Blackjack200]

This has nothing to do with the poll. Are you seriously trying to argue that white people in Brooklyn and Manhattan are not more politically powerful than black and Hispanic people in Queens and the Bronx?

Really? Have you ever been to New York City?

No, I'm arguing that your suggestion that opponents the Amazon deal were more politically powerful were not supported by the poll.

Here you go:
https://poll.qu.edu/new-york-city/release-detail?ReleaseID=2589

Okay, so a telephone (cell and landline) poll of a thousand people from two and a half months ago (shortly after Amazon's selection of NYC was announced). A useful data point, but I'm curious what more recent polls have to say.

 

[Blackjack200]

That's possible, but it's still not about her. I have not seen any evidence that she exerted meaningful influence on this local process/decision. She's just good clickbait these days.

Here's some:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/bu...one-incident-amazon-rep-says-decision-n971831

"We'd found our favorite restaurant" — Manducatis, a 40-year-old family-run Italian restaurant — "and we were looking at ways to make a positive impact on the community, to work together with small business owners and make a difference there," Jodi Seth, the head of policy communications for Amazon, told NBC News on Thursday.
...
"If you talk to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, it's 'Never Amazon,'" Seth said. "If you talk to [New York City Councilman Jimmy] Van Bramer, it's unions." (New York is still a heavily unionized town, and Amazon's opposition to unions was frequently cited by those who fought the project.)

 

[fskimospy]

Here's some:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/bu...one-incident-amazon-rep-says-decision-n971831

I mean I know she spoke against it but from what I've read the vastly more important reasons would be state and local red tape that was starting to crop up, the commission seat in particular, because this had actual power to change what they got from the state.

 

[theeedude]

9

Here's some:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/bu...one-incident-amazon-rep-says-decision-n971831

Really, they were looking at making a positive impact on the community by draining it of tax revenue and going over their heads to strike deals in?

Good job AOC for denying 20,000+ jobs to YOUR district. Good job. Quite a win.

Clearly, there are 20000 people in her district capable of making $150,000 on average just sitting around and waiting for Amazon to show up.

 

[Blackjack200]

I mean I know she spoke against it but from what I've read the vastly more important reasons would be state and local red tape that was starting to crop up, the commission seat in particular, because this had actual power to change what they got from the state.

I just did some reading on the Public Authorities Control Board, and the picture I'm starting to get is that Amazon probably thought PACB was likely to kill it, and didn't want to endure the PR damage that would occur with a protracted fight if they weren't going to win anyway.

That said, it's hard for them to blame PACB when they never actually submitted an application. I think that might explain some of the FUD coming from Amazon insiders.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/15/amazon-new-york-225077

 

[fskimospy]

I just did some reading on the Public Authorities Control Board, and the picture I'm starting to get is that Amazon probably thought PACB was likely to kill it, and didn't want to endure the PR damage that would occur with a protracted fight if they weren't going to win anyway.

That said, it's hard for them to blame PACB when they never actually submitted an application. I think that might explain some of the FUD coming from Amazon insiders.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/15/amazon-new-york-225077

Yes, this is my understanding as well.

 

[fskimospy]

9

Really, they were looking at making a positive impact on the community by draining it of tax revenue and going over their heads to strike deals in?

Clearly, there are 20000 people in her district capable of making $150,000 on average just sitting around and waiting for Amazon to show up.

I'm still not getting why the community was being drained of tax revenue. Are you saying there are other groups willing to come in without those incentives? First, why wouldn't they take the incentives considering they were generally available ones and not specific to Amazon? Second, if they exist why didn't they move in a long time ago?

 

[Blackjack200]

10

Really, they were looking at making a positive impact on the community by draining it of tax revenue and going over their heads to strike deals in?

They were coming to LIC to build schools and improve the community. If they made a few bucks along the way, so be it.

 

[Zorba]

I don't agree with these sorts of incentives at all. In fact I think one good thing we could do is pass a bill federally to eliminate the tax preference for state and local bonds, which would make handing these incentives out more expensive. That being said there's nothing special about the Amazon deal in this regard. If people wanted to eliminate these incentives why were there no complaints before? Because of that I doubt that's the real issue.

I think people in general are starting to question these deals much more than in the past. Then Amazon completely flaunted the process by publicly making every city in the country beg for them.

On my local city forums most people were glad when we didn't get Amazon due to the massive burden it would've put on infrastructure while they got out of paying for any of it. Housing isn't an issue here.

 

[Zorba]

The 3B tax break is on currently non-existent revenue. It isnt like Amazon is taking 3 billion out of the revenue account. They are getting a break on any potential new taxation. The ultimate cost is low to local govt. In the mean time 25,000 newly high paid workers arrive stimulating growth that increases tax revenues from other sources like property, income, and sales tax.

I will never understand why anybody would oppose a high salary venture like this if their goal is to stimulate growth. I can understand why they would oppose it if they didn't want to compete with Amazon for employees, or wanted to limit housing expansion, or keep their rent the same. But imo that is cutting off their nose to spite their face. Long term they will lose out.

Your response completely ignores what I said. While the city is giving up $3B they wouldn't have otherwise, they are SPENDING money they wouldn't otherwise have to spend at the same time.

This specific deal might have ended up positive for the city, but many of these deals never live up to expectations.

 

[Zorba]

10


They were coming to LIC to build schools and improve the community. If they made a few bucks along the way, so be it.

LOL. Yeah, Amazon cared about building schools for the poor and improving communities.

 

[theeedude]

It's very simple if Amazon wants to help the city build poor schools. Don't take their tax money so they can spend it on schools. It's not rocket science.

 

[theeedude]

I'm still not getting why the community was being drained of tax revenue. Are you saying there are other groups willing to come in without those incentives? First, why wouldn't they take the incentives considering they were generally available ones and not specific to Amazon? Second, if they exist why didn't they move in a long time ago?

If you are going to stay in a community and want to be welcome there, don't be a parasite and raid its treasury for subsidies you don't need. People have had enough of this. The whole HQ2 process was a tone deaf disgrace.

 

[fskimospy]

If you are going to stay in a community and want to be welcome there, don't be a parasite and raid its treasury for subsidies you don't need. People have had enough of this. The whole HQ2 process was a tone deaf disgrace.

Can you explain how the treasury would be raided?

The situation here was (using a simple example) instead of paying $10 in taxes Amazon would pay $5. That's the subsidy given. It was not 'New York pays Amazon $5.' The treasury would still get money, just not as much as it would otherwise.

I totally get being opposed to that too but we should be clear on what is happening.

 

[Blackjack200]

Can you explain how the treasury would be raided?

The situation here was (using a simple example) instead of paying $10 in taxes Amazon would pay $5. That's the subsidy given. It was not 'New York pays Amazon $5.' The treasury would still get money, just not as much as it would otherwise.

I totally get being opposed to that too but we should be clear on what is happening.

They were refundable tax credits, so either the state or the city would have been cutting a check to Amazon.

 

[realibrad]

They were refundable tax credits, so either the state or the city would have been cutting a check to Amazon.

Yes, but that only means they would take the money hold it, and then give it back no?

 

[fskimospy]

They were refundable tax credits, so either the state or the city would have been cutting a check to Amazon.

This implies that New York City/State would have a net loss in revenues from Amazon's relocation. I have seen no analysis anywhere that says such a thing.

If it's not a net loss of revenues, nobody's cutting them a check.

 

[Blackjack200]

This implies that New York City/State would have a net loss in revenues from Amazon's relocation. I have seen no analysis anywhere that says such a thing.

If it's not a net loss of revenues, nobody's cutting them a check.

Did anyone project the revenues from Amazon?