
Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated - pseudolus
https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/14/did-new-york-lose-anything-with-amazons-rejection-its-complicated/
======
leroy_masochist
> The livability crisis that’s currently afflicting Seattle and San Francisco
> is evidence of how cities need to be careful what they wish for when it
> comes to the explosive growth of technology companies (and the attendant
> wealth that comes with it) in their metropolises.

Let me get this straight, New Yorkers should view Seattle and SF as cautionary
tales for what happens when high-paying jobs arrive in a metropolitan area?
Has the author ever visited New York City?

SF's issues aren't caused by swanky new jobs, they're caused by NIMBY
politics. NYC has easily 10x the number of high-earning jobs as SF, no matter
how you define high-earning. Fortunately, the people running our local zoning
are only like a 5 or 6 on a 10-scale of batshit crazy.

~~~
Bartweiss
I've seen quite a few takes suggesting NYC will be transformed by the sudden
arrival of high earners, like the Seattle city councilors who went to NYC to
warn the city about their mistakes.[1] Whatever Amazon's merits, the specific
arguments seem ludicrous.

Seattle lawmakers talked about how Amazon took up 20% of the city's office
space. That was 45,000 workers in a city of 730,000 (6%), and a metro area of
3,800,000. NYC was looking at 25,000 Amazon employees against a _city_
population of 8,600,000 ( _0.02%_ ), and a metro population of 20,300,000.
This claim looks similarly awful. NYC and Seattle have surprisingly similar
average salaries ($69K), but the relative impact of 25k workers earning double
that is 1%-5% as large in NYC. Manhattan is already the highest-earning county
in the entire nation, so much so that adding Amazon employees there would
bring _down_ the average salary!

If anything, what I find wildest is that NYC has kept its housing prices
halfway sane. It's wrapped around a river and a bay, half on an island, in the
middle of an area so urbanized it inspired the word 'megalopolis'. A huge
fraction of its development is pre-automotive, so transport in and out ranges
from 'tricky' to 'crisis'. It has the highest-earning county in the country,
which is also one of the highest wealth-throughput areas in the world.

And so the median house price there is... perhaps 20% higher than Seattle's,
despite 4x the population density? Manhattan prices are at the same income
multiple as Seattle and the rest of NYC? What the heck? It's not that people
don't know Seattle housing prices are excessive, and the boom is pretty
recent, but I don't understand why it's viewed as a narrow issue of wages and
population growth. Whatever raised those prices, they still point to something
seriously wrong with the way things are functioning now.

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/07/seattle-l...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/07/seattle-
lawmakers-warn-new-york-city-about-amazon)

~~~
derekdahmer
What a lot of people don't realize is Manhattan in 2018 still has less people
living in it then it did in 1950. The massive immigration of young working
people in the 1920s led to large scale development high density housing.

Living costs were out of control and people lived 8 to a room in extremely
unsafe tenements but the upside is the city's housing and transportation
infrastructure was built for a capacity it still has not yet claimed back
today.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_New_Yor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_New_York_City#Manhattan)

~~~
Bartweiss
This is a really interesting point, thank you.

I hadn't realized NYC's population as a whole was only up 300,000 since 1950,
either. Maybe most interesting, the 2 boroughs that gained population are
larger (combined) than the 3 that lost it, and even today Queens and Staten
Island have the lowest population density. The metro area has grown massively,
but for the city proper it looks like not only has growth been slow, it's been
steadily evening out density.

I wonder how this has played out elsewhere; are there patterns of outcome (and
relative unhappiness cause) for population spikes/declines and for lower,
prolonged levels of excess demand?

------
zaptheimpaler
Agree with the article. The economists can argue all day about how the
equation will work out to be a net profit to NYC regardless of subsidies, but
that seems short-sighted. Every decision can not be reduced to a profit/loss
question.

One company should not have bargaining power over an entire city, and they
certainly should not get special economic treatment over others. It points to
and perpetuates an unhealthy power imbalance.

At the end of the day, every US company (and Amazon in particular) got where
they are in no small part thanks to all the infrastructure & standing in the
world that the government provides. Using that when its convenient and
forgetting about it later is just not ethical. And I suspect the 25K jobs are
going to stay somewhere in the US anyways, creating about the same tax income
even if its spread out.

~~~
whack
I keep hearing about Amazon getting "special treatment", but is that really
true?

[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-amazons-hq2-means-
for...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-amazons-hq2-means-for-
taxpayers-in-new-york-and-virginia-2018-11-14)

> _For the Long Island City location, Amazon was going to receive $1.2 billion
> in refundable tax credits through New York State’s Excelsior Jobs Program if
> the company created 25,000 net new jobs in New York State by the end of June
> 2028.

> New York State had also promised a $505 million capital grant to reimburse
> Amazon for the costs associated with building its office space.

> Amazon also planned to take advantage of incentives through New York City’s
> Industrial and Commercial Abatement Program and New York City’s Relocation
> and Employment Assistance Program (REAP). Unlike the incentive offered by
> state officials, these city programs are available to any businesses that
> meet their specific requirements. Tax breaks through REAP, for instance,
> could have added up to $900 million._

Most of the subsidies are coming from existing programs which every company
can take advantage of. The only special treatment Amazon is getting is the
$500M mentioned above. Which works out to $2000 per job, over 10 years. An
amount which is recouped in a few months of NYC city taxes alone - a tax which
most other cities do not have at all.

I can see why people outside of NYC would be cheering for this. But it's
insanity for locals to be celebrating shooting themselves in the foot. HQ2
would have cemented New York's place as the country's #2 tech hub after
silicon valley. Over the next 20 years, New York could have even challenged
and supplanted silicon valley. For tech workers in the city, it would have
given them greater bargaining power when negotiating compensation with their
existing or new employers. And for startups, it would have offered another
source of employees to poach from, and a company that could easily acquire
them.

New York has always succeeded because it was a pragmatic city. But this entire
debacle is the kind of political dysfunction that I would have expected from
San Francisco, not NYC.

~~~
sys_64738
It doesn't matter how much money Amazon got as it's the perception of the fact
they are getting a tax break which is why it's shocking. Amazon isn't some
two-bit startup which has no VC funding. It's the richest company in the world
so why the heck do New Yorkers need to hand over their cash to bring them the
Queens?

~~~
whack
For the same reason you hand over your cash in order to buy stuff on
amazon.com or run things on AWS. Not because Amazon deserves your money, but
because it's in your own best interests to do so.

Since you seem so opposed to tax breaks for big corporations, have you also
lobbied for repealing the Excelsior and REAP programs? Or do you get upset
only when these programs are applied to Amazon?

~~~
diffeomorphism
The idea of those incentives is to lessen the difficulties of expanding into
your city and in return they are moving to your city. For a small company
these might be large difficulties, for a company the size of amazon they are
very small in comparison.

Thus, the only reason it is "in your best interest" is a prisoner's dilemma.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma)

Any city has two options: A) hurt yourself by making big concessions, B) don't
do that. (Obviously also various degrees of A, but that does not matter in the
following).

Ideally for your city and all cities, every city goes with B) and you get the
deal by virtue of what should matter (existing infrastructure, location,...).
However, if another city "caves" and offers A) they improve their chances, so
what happens is that all cities offer A). That decision is "in your own best
interest", but everybody is worse off than if nobody did that (same for
bribery and paying "protection money" to the mafia).

Thus, yes I am opposed to Amazon receiving the benefits of these programs.
However, instead of repealing them outright, they should include a ceiling.

~~~
whack
Let's take this argument to its logical conclusion. NYC charges all residents
an income tax to live in the city. Most other cities don't have such a tax,
and this leads to the same prisoner's dilemma. Hence, every city should now be
morally obligated to charge the same income tax that NYC does. Similarly for
state income taxes as well.

If that sounds absurd, I certainly think it is. Local governments shouldn't be
trying to "profit" by taxing its residents and companies. The whole purpose of
local taxes is to best serve local residents and companies. If a city/state
can better serve its people by lowering its taxes or by offering tax credits
for specific programs, it should certainly do so, even if there's no
competition involved. There is no prisoner's dilemma here.

------
matt4077
This really isn’t about New York.

The problem is the race-to-the-bottom communities engage in when heaping tax
subsidies on companies that would create jobs no matter what.

For public finance, it is one of the purest examples of a prisoner’s dilemma
one could think of. And just as in that thought experiment, it is entirely
obvious how to get to an outcome that is better for everyone: cooperation.

Other economies have done so successfully: The EU limits direct subsidies to
individual companies, shifting competition to areas that benefit all companies
and citizens as well, such as education, safety, public transit, reasearch, or
even low taxes, as long as they apply not just to those that are large and
mobile.

The results speak for themselves: Ireland has become a knowledge economy
powerhouse, not primarily with their illegal subsidies to Apple, but with
lower taxes across the board, plus some rather good universities and the
English language.

Eastern Europe has managed to attract manufacturing, especially automotive.
Over the last 20 years, they have experienced a massive economic rally.
Meanwhile, old economies like Germany aren’t exactly hurting, either.

There used to be an argument against that seemingly made sense, namely that
subsidies may be the only tool poorer communities have to attract investment
and catch up.

But if anything, this debacle has exposed that argument as hollow: it wasn’t
Detroit or Kentucky winning HQ2, it was New York. Financial competition seems
to favor the already rich, to everyone’s surprise.

The trouble seems to be a sort of fetishisation of market mechanisms: citizens
favoring tax competition makes about as much sense as a union disbanding
because “this really isn’t fair to McDonalds”.

Focusing on New York shifts the debate onto a side issue, namely that economic
indicators do not always perfectly correlate with quality of life. Because NY
would have seen a benefit in the former, without a doubt. But the impact would
have been distributed somewhat unequally amongst the population. That’s a
debate to be had, and one where a clear answer eludes me. But it’s tangential
to the unique features of this incident, namely the reality-show competition
and massive subsidies.

~~~
C1sc0cat
MMM yes not sure I believe you Ireland succeeded because it had an educated
English language work force who would prefer to go to England to work. Plus
massive tax subsidies' that screwed over their eu partners whist still
collecting eu investment as a depressed area.

~~~
secfirstmd
I'm Irish and I hate to say it but it's hard not to agree that we wouldn't be
in a much worse state if we hadn't become a de facto tax haven for companies
entering the EU. Yes we do have a well educated, English speaking, flexible
and fun workforce but let's be real, most of the companies wouldn't be here
(at least initially) if it wasn't for tax.

While it's mostly positive, the presence of big multinationals also causes
problems. For one, ___most_ __of them are doing marketing, services etc rather
than development. This means they are more flexible to move elsewhere.

Also, they are a brain drain from local enterprises. Irish people seem to have
this ingrained thing whereby they prefer to stay at a big company rather than
move. It means we haven't seen the positive spin-outs that we should have when
so many big companies are in the country for so long. I can't think of a
billion dollar sized company that has been built here in Ireland in the tech
sector. Even Stripe had to go abroad.

------
nkozyra
I know in the technical sense, calling it Amazons rejection is accurate, but
in reality this was a power play of a different kind from the people of the
city.

While I've not found a consistent stance among people I talked to almost
everyone found it at least troubling how Amazon could wield this kind of
power. The people who opposed it were vocal and diligent. I'd argue NYC
rejected Amazon.

More importantly, while cities compete for companies or industries all the
time, it seems this really highlighted the kind of leverage a big company can
hold over even a huge metropolis.

~~~
barry-cotter
> I'd argue NYC rejected Amazon.

Over 60% of NYC residents who had an opinion supported Amazon. Over 70% of
Long Island residents supported them. This is a victory for some well
organised political activists but to cast it as a victory for NYC is a bit
much.

At the very least it makes NYC a less likely competitor to the Bay Area.

[https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/02/am...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/02/amazon-
winners-and-losers.html)

> The Bay Area: NYC is no longer such a fierce competitor at the macro level,
> with the potential to become the new center of gravity for the tech world.
> The Bay Area can breathe a bit more easily now, at least as long as
> clustering remains the name of the game. Yet this one is double-edged,
> because it also means the Bay Area has less incentive to solve its rather
> pressing problems and dysfunctions.

[https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1096137477188976646?s=21](https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1096137477188976646?s=21)

> The most prominent voices of opposition to the Amazon deal have been local
> pols in Queens, but that doesn't align with public opinion. The Quinnipiac
> poll showed strongest support for the subsidy package in Queens (55-39) and
> the Bronx (54-37).

[https://poll.qu.edu/new-york-city/release-
detail?ReleaseID=2...](https://poll.qu.edu/new-york-city/release-
detail?ReleaseID=2589)

> Support for the Amazon relocation in general ranges from 51 - 29 percent in
> Manhattan to 64 - 21 percent in The Bronx.

> Queens voters support 55 - 39 percent the $3 billion incentive package to
> attract Amazon.

~~~
hannasanarion
>At the very least it makes NYC a less likely competitor to the Bay Area.

Nonsense. If the bay area were a competitor, that's where Amazon would have
wanted put their new HQ, not New York. Amazon doesn't have an HQ in San
Francisco.

Nevermind the fact that New York has been experiencing a tech boom for the
last decade or more, with Apple, Facebook, and Google all buying campuses
similar in scale to Amazon's proposed one, and without demanding bribes from
the state before doing so.

~~~
cthalupa
Apple, Facebook, and Google all meet the requirements for the Excelsior Jobs
Program ( [https://esd.ny.gov/excelsior-jobs-
program](https://esd.ny.gov/excelsior-jobs-program) ) which is where 2.5
billion of the 3 came from for the Amazon deal.

I have no personal knowledge of whether or not the three are utilizing it, but
it would seem unlikely to me that three smart businesses would not be taking
advantage of some easy to quality for tax credits, which means it's likely
they are taking 5/6ths of the same amount of tax breaks that Amazon was
planning to.

------
brown9-2
The Wisconsin Foxconn saga should teach us all to be highly skeptical of the
claims that companies make when seeking these types of subsidies:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-06/inside-
wi...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-06/inside-wisconsin-s-
disastrous-4-5-billion-deal-with-foxconn)

Analyses of the Amazon-NYC story should factor in the probability that the
25,000 promised jobs would never have fully materialized.

~~~
whatok
Amazon should not be compared to Foxconn just because they both happen to be
topical. Amazon would need to hit targets to get the tax breaks. There is no
way that committing fraud or completely misleading NYC would be worth the
reputation hit Amazon would get all for just $3bn over ten years.

~~~
brown9-2
I’m not suggesting fraud, just that we should take forecasts for what they are
- forecasts, not guarantees.

However it seems to me that Amazon did not seem to mind taking a reputation
hit with the idea of a year-long “search” and bake-off for HQ2 where the
results were obviously pre-determined in advance.

~~~
whatok
Sure, forecasts are forecasts but their tax incentives are not tied to their
forecasts so what's the big deal?

------
anonu
Antitrust in America is broken. It may be time to breakup companies like
Amazon and Facebook - or at least take a very hard look at whether breaking
them up would stimulate more competition and innovation in our marketplace.

If Amazon is upset that it didn't get subsidies and open arms to come to NYC -
then it should probably move elsewhere. There are many other communities and
cities that could benefit from any benefits way more than NYC.

NYC is right to stand up to the creeping influence of mono-culture.

The other day I was walking through the West Village in NYC. I'd say a good
30% of stores are shuttered. I stopped in front of a interior design store and
looked through the window - and just spent 5 minutes browsing the amazing
collection of whatever they were offering. You can't do that online. Instead,
you are funneled towards the item that has the best reviews (maybe fake) or
has been optimized for cheapness - and everyone buys it.

/ end rant

------
ThomPete
Yes they lost 25000 taxpayers who will pay income tax in a city which has
close to 50% taxation all in all for the upper echelon.

I have heard some crazy claims that New York doesn't need the jobs as it has
4.5% unemployment rate.

Every job that could have been created in New York but didn't is a lost job.

It's not complicated at all.

------
kerkeslager
The question for me isn't the profit/loss equation, it's whether we should be
giving subsidies to already highly-profitable companies.

You can argue all you want about whether Amazon would bring in more money for
NYC, but the fact is that they would bring in MORE net money if they didn't
receive the subsidies. Yes, you can argue that Amazon wouldn't come to NYC
then, but that's only because American cities have allowed Amazon to set the
rules by creating this competition for their HQ2 location. American cities
need to present a united front that we won't be giving money to already
extremely wealthy people. Otherwise any time a major company wants to start a
new location they can play cities against each other and the people living in
those cities will pay the price.

Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. If he wants a new HQ he can buy
the real estate at full price. Americans need to stand up to the frankly
disgusting idea that we should be giving him money.

~~~
cthalupa
>Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. If he wants a new HQ he can buy
the real estate at full price. Americans need to stand up to the frankly
disgusting idea that we should be giving him money.

I feel like all of the people saying that Amazon should pay full price because
Bezos is rich are missing the point. His wealth is almost entirely in stock,
which the valuation of is heavily dependent on how Amazon does quarter to
quarter. He's seen a 25% decrease in most of his wealth vs. where it was last
year.

He's not the richest person because Amazon is generated boatloads of cash and
handing it to him, so it's not like he can redirect that into buying real
estate. Nor can he sell a ton of his shares without potentially losing a
controlling interest in the company.

He's obviously exceedingly wealthy, but in practicality, the majority of his
net worth is unavailable to him as long as he wants to continue running Amazon
without any chance of interference or veto, and basically none of it is
available to make an impact on this sort of decision.

The merits of any incentives should be based on the economic realities of the
situation, plain and simple. Do the tax breaks result in a net positive for
the city, based on generated tax revenue, new jobs, both from Amazon and those
providing service to Amazon employees, from the new housing that must be built
to support the population increase, etc.

I don't know if they do. Maybe this would be an amazing deal for NYC. Maybe it
would be a terrible deal. I'm not qualified to make a real judgment there. But
the 'Bezos and Amazon are rich, why should we give them anything' is just more
populist rhetoric, which we need to get out of our politics. It's toxic as
hell.

~~~
JetSpiegel
> His wealth is almost entirely in stock, which the valuation of is heavily
> dependent on how Amazon does quarter to quarter.

Maybe, but it's "real" enough to borrow money at low interest. Or fund vanity
projects like Blue Origin. There are physical rockets being built with fake
wealth, so in practice that wealth is as good as cash.

------
kingkawn
This is 100% Cuomo’s fault for keeping everything secret, as he always does,
and trying to bully all the stakeholders out of having any say. Local NYC
politics is brutal, and nobody is gonna roll over their needs just cause
someone else says it’s the right thing to do.

~~~
whatok
Deblasio was also involved in the negotiations but yes, this is the real
reason why this didn't go through. I can't imagine how much additional red
tape would be tacked on if state and city legislators got involved in the
process so I can understand the want for secrecy.

~~~
kingkawn
Yes but those additions would’ve secured support for the deal to go through.
That’s how it works: not a marshaling of principles but an exchange of met
needs.

Edit: also as New Yorkers seems to be aware DeBlasio is fairly powerless in
relation to the governor.

~~~
whatok
It obviously could have gone either way but given how adamant politicians were
on guaranteed union jobs and Amazon's refusal to entertain the idea, I don't
know what they would have been able to meet in the middle on.

~~~
kingkawn
I think Amazon would’ve been able to find a compromise, the unions in nyc are
some of the most professionalized in the country. They’re not starry eyed
leftists, just businessmen looking out for members of their labor
conglomerate.

------
jinushaun
After all the pageantry Amazon picks the #1 and #2 most obvious cities for
HQ2. Which leads me (and many others) to believe that they would have expanded
their NYC presence anyway. Amazon already has THOUSANDS of employees in the
NYC area. It was inevitable.

What rubs people the wrong way was that Amazon got a tax break it didn’t need.

And even after this deal has “died”, Amazon will STILL continue to expand in
NYC! Certainly won’t be Jersey.

~~~
KevinEldon
And yet the elected officials of NY didn't think Amazon would choose NY
without offering Amazon incentives to expand in NY. Why did they do that?

~~~
whatok
A good portion of the tax incentives Amazon would have taken advantage of were
through existing programs that any business could use. One of the real
incentives offered was probably in the form of cutting down on red tape for
construction of the new campus.

------
rubyfan
Have they answered where do the 25,000 jobs go now?

~~~
ltc5505
They said that the search for a HQ2 will not continue and instead they are
focusing on increasing presence in NY, VA, and I think TN. Not sure if the
increased presence is 25,000 jobs worth.

~~~
brown9-2
Which makes this whole episode so bizarre - they suddenly changed their mind
on the value of having a HQ2 (and 25k jobs in a HQ) completely, after such a
long and public buildup? Something is fishy here.

~~~
dashundchen
Yes, something strikes me as strange about the withdrawl announcment.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the incentives and subsidies were
coming from the state, not the city. Cuomo and many majority Democrats in the
state Senate were on board. The mayor, DeBlasio was on board.

The opposition was driven locally by councilpeople and community activists.
Some in state government opposed but I doubt it would have been enough to
derail it, especially considering upstate cities have had similar blockbuster
subsidy deals given to them (Albany with IBM/nanotech, Buffalo with
Tesla/Solar City).

It seems like Amazon would be driven to withstand some (likely temporary)
public criticism in order to get billions of dollars of incentives. After all,
they already faced the same criticism during the HQ2 spectacle and have a lot
of same type of backlash in their hometown to begin with.

Makes me wonder if there's another story playing out that the public has not
heard yet.

~~~
hguant
It's my understanding that Amazon had a lot of difficulty working with the
city's unions, owing to the latter's opposition to Amazon's anti-union stance.
The unions had a lot of support from the local councilpersons and community
activists you spoke of.

Right before the Amazon pull out, there were several meetings between Amazon,
labour/union reps, and government officials (according to NPR). It's all a
black box, but my guess is that either the unions or Amazon wanted some sort
of contractual guarantee the other was unwilling to budge on, and the local
governance sided with the unions.

------
Gpetrium
I think a lot of us forget that there is an economic multiplier occurring when
a company of Amazon's magnitude comes and sets-up shop. There are also clear
benefits from having educated individuals setting-up shop in your city. Not
accounting for all the other ways that taxes and commerce exist for companies
of that size (E.g. Payroll tax, etc)

I agree that there are some negative factors that have to be accounted for
that are not associated with the subsidies. I also find it unnecessary for a
place like NY to be provide that degree of subsidies since it already has a
quite robust environment full of successful businesses.

I think the US would be better off having Amazon's HQ2 in another area of the
country (a combo of North Carolina/Virginia maybe?) to diversify the country's
technological output from California & NY.

------
sys_64738
New Yorkers are sick and tired of mega corps getting tax breaks to fiddle the
tax system while their infrastructure suffers even more. Perhaps if Amazon
contributed the $5b they would 'save' on NYGC subway improvements then the
people would be more favorable to them being in LIC. But, nadda.

~~~
seankimdesign
I thought the majority opinion of the New Yorkers were in favor of Amazon's
headquarter coming to the city.

------
melbourner
I don't understand how amazon itself would create such a wealth imbalance
among people. There are already so many big corporations that pay handsomely
for those who work in Newyork city and the cost of living is same as SF or
Seattle.

~~~
kerkeslager
1\. Straight off the bat, you're giving a gigantic subsidy to the largest
retailer of the world, whose CTO is the richest man in the world. That's
coming out of taxes paid by normal people. If that's not obviously increasing
wealth imbalance I don't know how to make it any clearer. The other companies
who pay for those who work in NYC do so without creating a gigantic
competition to see what city will give them the most money.

2\. There are many reasons to be skeptical of Amazon's promises to create
jobs.

3\. Many of the jobs created are for technical, mental labor that requires
education. There is no shortage of these jobs already, and many of the jobs
are filled by people moving into New York, rather than by the people who are
already there.

4\. The cost of living is NOT the same as SF, yet. Rents in SF are much higher
still.

~~~
refurb
_That 's coming out of taxes paid by normal people._

No it's not. If Amazon doesn't come the city/state collects zero tax.

~~~
kerkeslager
If you read my comment in context, you'd see that I'm stating problems with
the (now hypothetical) situation where Amazon _does_ come to NYC.

------
KangLi
In addition to all the metrics and crunching of numbers, pride also comes into
play. New Yorkers who opposed Amazon did so on another level of basis such as
how it is their turf and their city, and not simply for the highest paying to
walk in unwelcomed. Amazon attitude of not being willing to discuss with the
locals demonstrates a sheer arrogance that derives from corporate capital
Godzilla. Both sides had their ego held up high, except that Amazon had it for
the wrong reason.

------
alkibiades
it’s funny people keep saying “ny rejected amazon”. amazon already had the
deal and turned it down. they are the ones who took the action.

------
tmugavero
New York didn't lose anything by not having Amazon here. New York is a city
built on diversity, and ensuring resources are available to maintain that
diversity is important to the citizens. It's a matter of giving one huge
handout to the most valuable company in the world that will destroy a
community and drive up wages (bad for small businesses) and housing costs (bad
for Queens), versus giving $5M to 100 small businesses who can create jobs and
maintain diversity while keeping wages / housing in check. That not to
mention, there are other infrastructural things in NYC that need attention /
money. People here want money going back into the soul of the city, not to an
outsider traipsing around to various cities looking for who will give the
biggest handout. Amazon's big misstep here is that they acted like they were a
gift to NYC, and didn't sell the dream of what value they'd bring to the city.
New Yorkers will immediately tell people to fuck off with that approach.

Amazon's other missed opportunity is not intentionally choosing a smaller city
like Austin or Denver, which would not only have amazing talent, schools,
transportation, and culture, but would be far less costly. They would save
more money in the long run and achieve the same results. But that's beside the
point.

New York doesn't need Amazon, and I'm glad Amazon caved when the people pushed
back. It shows that Amazon never cared about the people here and would bring
nothing to the community.

edit: If you're going to downvote please comment why you disagree.

~~~
unethical_ban
Amazon and/or Austin would literally have to build in another part of the city
and construct their own rail system to compete with how awful the traffic is.

Also, I disagree that diversity is a priority over long term tax revenue and
infrastructure improvements and economic success.

Also, I didn't downvote you.

~~~
tmugavero
Austin's traffic is bad for sure. Dallas then perhaps, which at least has a
rail going north (also bad traffic). That said, Queens absolutely values
diversity. They mom and pop shops getting pushed out all over the city is
creating a negative feedback loop. Some city officials and politicians may
like the tax, but there are some that are also protective of the culture. It's
a complex issue, but ultimately, New York is not an easy place to walk into.
Lots of people to make happy on a deal this size.

~~~
coredog64
Long Island City is practically indistinguishable from Manhattan these days.
Those mom and pop shops are going to be pushed out regardless of whether or
not HQ2 is in LIC. At best, current residents have a reprieve that can be
measured in months or two years at the outside.

------
astazangasta
If a city like New York can lose anything because one company doesnt want to
headquarter there, we all have a problem.

------
Dowwie
If you want some perspective on the matter, Brian Lehrer had on his show one
of the councilmen who opposed Amazon: [https://www.wnyc.org/story/why-did-
amazon-renege-deal/](https://www.wnyc.org/story/why-did-amazon-renege-deal/)

------
m3kw9
The issue was Amazon bait and switching at the end. If they haven’t, it would
have been harder for this to happen

------
kerng
Didn't follow this entirely, but the phrasing "Amazon's rejection" caught my
attention. Isn't it the other way around, NYC rejecting Amazon?

~~~
JJMcJ
There were some complaints about the deal, and the effects on surrounding
areas, for the people and businesses that were already there.

Hardly a rejection.

------
ineedasername
FTA: _Amazon employees were buying real estate in Queens before the deal was
even announced._ That's got to be a face-palm moment

------
JJMcJ
Somehow every other company in the universe seems able to locate in NYC
without a multi-billion $$ subsidy.

~~~
cthalupa
Well, 5/6ths of the subsidy Amazon was going to receive is open to quite a lot
of businesses.

[https://esd.ny.gov/excelsior-jobs-program](https://esd.ny.gov/excelsior-jobs-
program)

------
anth_anm
"Amazon's rejection".

Interesting way to phrase what happened.

------
kadendogthing
NYC rejected Amazon. Not the other way around.

~~~
tmugavero
Not sure why you're being downvoted. It's absolutely true.

------
KorematsuFred
This eventually boils down to NIMBY vs YIMBY. Like that remote rural area of
USA who thinks that immigrants are destroying their way of life the settled
population of these large cities resist any progress because that might
threaten their current state of life.

It is a very hard problem without any obvious solutions. The only concern I
have here is that few vocal groups will make the minority or less loud
opinions seem non-existent. The best way to resolve this would be to have a
fractal localism where the decisions are made closer to where the action is
happening and by giving more importance to locals who actually are closer to
the project location rather than being part of the larger city.

