Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Path Amazon Rejected

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 102 posts

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#71

Post by smsm42 »

baddox wrote: post #39
nickonline wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They offered Amazon $3B tax breaks, while the city would have profited $27B. The city would have a net gain of $24B. Now the city doesn't gain anything.

That seems overly simplistic. I doubt that Amazon are the only ones with any likelihood of bringing new jobs to New York in the near future.

That jobs would come with or without Amazon (more likely with Amazon, since Amazon HQ would be a huge business attractor for smaller companies) - nobody would say "well, we're going to open office in NYC but since Amazon is already there we won't". Other companies would open anyway, yes. But Amazon won't. It's not a fixed pie, it adds up. And NYC just took a huge piece of this pie and threw it into the river. To spite Bezos. Hope it's worth $24B to them.

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#72

Post by boron1006 »

bogomipz wrote: post #67
boron1006 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the tax breaks that the city was giving Amazon are still available for pretty much any company.

This line that "any company" could get these incentives from the city is being parroted and its simply not true. Of the 4 sources of incentives only two were city programs: City: Relocation and Employment Assistance Program (REAP) and the Industrial Commercial Abatement Program (ICAP) programs. REAP credits for instance are not available to retail or hotels. Retail is particularly sensitive subject in NYC as it has b…

You've misunderstood what I meant. People talk as though Amazon is getting a sweetheart deal from NYS and NYC. However, what they're getting is (mostly) a predetermined set of tax breaks for relocating to LIC.

And I know about the state programs, that's why I specified about the city grants.

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#73

Post by bogomipz »

trikonasana wrote: post #23
yalogin wrote: post #3

Amazon screwed up when they made choosing a place into a reality contest. That came off as egotistical and people took notice. They brought the attention on to themselves. I think they finally realized that walking out of it and letting it die down is the best way going forward.

That seems to be the popular opinion (that this is Amazon's fault) but I disagree. Amazon coming to LIC would have been a net benefit for everyone. 25k jobs that pay a minimum wage of $15/hour...who would reject that? Sure they get a $3b tax break, but they would have paid far more than that in state taxes over the long term. The people on the city council did not represent the the best interest of the citizens, inst…

>"The people on the city council did not represent the the best interest of the citizens, instead trying to spin this as a stand against corporate greed."

It sounds as that you haven't spent any amount of time in Long Island City then. LIC is is home to the NYCHA housing project called The Queensbridge Houses. It has the distinction of being the country’s largest public housing project[1]. It comprises 26 buildings in various states of decay and 60% of 7K residents live on food stamps. I would say Corey Johnson et al were very much looking out for them. This is the same NYCHA that was sued by the federal government last year and ordered to invest $1 billion in repairs to the dilapidated housing stock and submit to a federal monitor.[2]. LIC's Queensbridge Houses have been very much a poster child for authority's dereliction.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensbridge_Houses [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/nyregion/nycha-federal-mo...

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#74

Post by bobthepanda »

roenxi wrote: post #68
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is exploitative. Any company founded in the US is going to use the resources US provides - roads, trade & economic power, the USPS, the talent pool etc for Amazon. When their success is built on that foundation, they owe it to the government (& taxpayers) to return the favor and show some goodwill. Instead, taxpayers subsidize them when they're growing, then they want to cheat as much as legally possible on their…

> exploitative That isn't an appropriate word. Clearly, the City of NY, or whoever is negotiating with Amazon, is big enough not to be pushed around if they don't want to be. It is a negotiation. It the political system is screwing over tax payers, that flat out isn't Amazon's problem. It is the voters' problem. > When their success is built on that foundation, they owe it to the government (& taxpayers) to return th…

The City of New York and the executive of the City of New York are not one and the same.

The executive of the State in conjunction with the executive of the City tried to do an end-run around the City Council by using power in laws that people forgot existed. But this law required an approval from the State Legislature, which was not willing to grant it unconditionally. The political system is working as intended.

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#75

Post by pochamago »

_bxg1 wrote: post #55
boron1006 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the tax breaks Amazon used are open for pretty much any company, and have been around for a very long time. But no one seems to want to repeal or fix these laws. In all of this, I haven't seen a single person talk about them. You can't agree to a set of rules then complain when someone actually follows them.

Many people may not even know about them. Encouraging people to channel these feelings into the ballot is well and fine, but let's not pretend there's anything close to a direct coupling between the will of the people and the will of their representatives, much less preexisting laws. People are allowed to be dissatisfied; they don't have to simply lie in the bed that they only had a partial hand in making.

I don't think anyone saying people shouldn't be dissatisfied. It's just that targeting Amazon with that ire is ineffective when it's the laws on the books that are the problem

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#76

Post by boron1006 »

_bxg1 wrote: post #55
boron1006 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the tax breaks Amazon used are open for pretty much any company, and have been around for a very long time. But no one seems to want to repeal or fix these laws. In all of this, I haven't seen a single person talk about them. You can't agree to a set of rules then complain when someone actually follows them.

Many people may not even know about them. Encouraging people to channel these feelings into the ballot is well and fine, but let's not pretend there's anything close to a direct coupling between the will of the people and the will of their representatives, much less preexisting laws. People are allowed to be dissatisfied; they don't have to simply lie in the bed that they only had a partial hand in making.

You do have to be logically consistent in your voting though, and you should be as well informed as possible.

You can't have people vote for anything shiny with "JOBS" written on it, and then get outraged when corporations get tax breaks.

Continuous outrage leads to the same results as continuous praise: Leaders who don't feel bound to the laws that their constituents have created.

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#77

Post by _bxg1 »

pochamago wrote: post #75
_bxg1 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people may not even know about them. Encouraging people to channel these feelings into the ballot is well and fine, but let's not pretend there's anything close to a direct coupling between the will of the people and the will of their representatives, much less preexisting laws. People are allowed to be dissatisfied; they don't have to simply lie in the bed that they only had a partial hand in making.

I don't think anyone saying people shouldn't be dissatisfied. It's just that targeting Amazon with that ire is ineffective when it's the laws on the books that are the problem

Ineffective without other action, but not misdirected.

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#78

Post by bogomipz »

joemaller1 wrote: post #12

> Just days before, I had counseled a senior Amazon executive... Can pretty much stop there. I think Amazon saw a mayor and governor who thought they traded tax breaks for a say in how Amazon runs its business. This was a huge loss for the city. LIC will be toxic to big business for years. And now the mayor is passing the blame to the very corporations who would come in and create jobs.

>"LIC will be toxic to big business for years"

You mean like Citibank, JetBlue, Fresh Direct and Steve Madden who all moved to Long Island City years ago and continue to flourish? Or like Ralph Lauren who just signed a lease for 19K square foot of space and Cornel University's building of their Techion campus? Yeah right.

I'm amazed on the number of people who appear be not only unfamiliar with Long Island City as a neighborhood but also of NYC and it current economic well-being in technology jobs. And yet these same folks feel compelled to make comments about what a "huge loss" this is.

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#79

Post by bogomipz »

jedberg wrote: post #46

Why would Amazon try to make things right in NYC, when they can just go somewhere else that welcomes them with open arms and no complaints? NYC didn't offer them anything of particularly great value that they couldn't get elsewhere. I wish they were being better about helping the communities they are moving into, but I can see why they would just leave.

>"NYC didn't offer them anything of particularly great value that they couldn't get elsewhere."

You mean like access to a very large and very skilled labor pool? A 24 hour transit system, 3 major airports? 1 million square feet of available office like they were going to take in Citicorp tower that has a train stop at the bottom of the building? Sure.

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#80

Post by pathseeker »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #57
slowmovintarget wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reality doesn't allow people to have it both ways. Either be upset that the system incentivizes the behavior, or be upset that the incentives failed. In both of those cases, the blame lies at the feet of the elected officials. Granted, the implication of that is the blame lies at the feet of those who cast the ballots (George Carlin, we miss you). People always have trouble blaming themselves. Corporations are jello.…

Using this logic, people aren't allowed to be upset at anything, as long as it's a rational action within a system. This is a weird way to look at things! You can justify all sorts of reprehensible behavior this way. "Either be upset that the system incentivizes slavery, or be upset that the incentives against slavery failed." But definitely don't be upset at the slaveowners!

> Using this logic, people aren't allowed to be upset at anything, as long as it's a rational action within a system. This is a weird way to look at things!

That's not what was said, at all. Be upset at your politicians. This is a democracy despite what the cynics say. The vast majority of people mad at Amazon don't even understand that they weren't being given very special treatment. Most of it came from existing state incentive programs.

Post reply on HN