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

Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 281 posts

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#181

Post by kingkawn »

whatok wrote: post #169
kingkawn wrote: post #97

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.

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.

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.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#182

Post by deminature »

nihonde wrote: post #122
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is the subsidy was only 10% of the expected tax revenue and only $500mm was exclusive to Amazon (mostly in the form of property rights). The rest is available to anyone who sets up shop outside of Manhattan. As far as tax breaks go it’s fairly minuscule. But because of poor numeracy and a poor understanding of the conditions of the break or the nature of tax deductions, a lot of people had sticker shock at…

Some people misunderstood that the $3B was a credit, not real cash being gifted to Amazon. But even among people who understand the nature of a tax credit, we felt that NYC should not forego revenue that another company would have to pay. In other words, the city has enough bargaining power to collect all the taxes that it would be owed. Amazon can flounce and run off to Virginia or Nashville or wherever, but NYC wil…

Unfortunately people who misunderstood Amazon wasn't being gifted $3B includes the recently elected congressperson for the area: https://mobile.twitter.com/qtrresearch/status/10961811573167...

EDIT: Congressperson for an adjacent area, not for that area.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#183

Post by whatok »

kingkawn wrote: post #181
whatok wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#184

Post by untog »

deminature wrote: post #182
nihonde wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people misunderstood that the $3B was a credit, not real cash being gifted to Amazon. But even among people who understand the nature of a tax credit, we felt that NYC should not forego revenue that another company would have to pay. In other words, the city has enough bargaining power to collect all the taxes that it would be owed. Amazon can flounce and run off to Virginia or Nashville or wherever, but NYC wil…

Unfortunately people who misunderstood Amazon wasn't being gifted $3B includes the recently elected congressperson for the area: https://mobile.twitter.com/qtrresearch/status/10961811573167... EDIT: Congressperson for an adjacent area, not for that area.

You see this a lot because conservatives have a hate-on for AOC, but she's not the congressperson for the area Amazon were building in. Queens has a lot of congressional districts.

She also had very little to nothing to do with the decision, but again, you wouldn't know that from watching the conservative commentary.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#185

Post by untog »

weiming wrote: post #31
melling wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what you’re saying is that there’s not currently $3 billion saved that can now be invested in the schools, subways, etc.

Over some years, Amazon was to pay some $X in taxes. But they were given a break to pay $3b less assuming some goals are met. The city receives $X - $3b. Now the city receives $0.

Well, not $0. NYC is a desirable place for many companies, and others will move in to the place Amazon intended to occupy. It might take longer and the companies may be smaller, but it's not like there is now a giant black hole in Queens that can never be filled.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#186

Post by JJMcJ »

bko wrote: post #162
cowmoo728 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of vacant apartments and the number of apartments listed for sale/rent are both at an all time high. Despite this, most new construction is priced at the high end of the market. In addition, there's been a big boom in ultra-high-end multimillion dollar apartments. https://www.6sqft.com/nearly-250000-nyc-rental-apartments-si... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/realestate/brooklyn-devel...

New construction of expensive high end apartments help lower the prices on other units. Wealthy people will move there rather than driving up prices on dilapidated brown-stones. Its kind of how the average new car price is 30k, which is off limits for many Americans. But the new car inventory drives down the price of older models.

With a few exceptions new construction is high end.

There are a few areas that were designed as slums from the beginning: Lower East Side in Manhattan, parts of the West Side in Chicago.

Taking Silicon Valley, if 25,000 high end apartments were built, that would take a lot of pressure off low end, because well paid people wouldn't be taking them out of desperation.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#188

Post by Bartweiss »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #103

> 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 metropolita…

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...

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#189

Post by JJMcJ »

kerng wrote: post #106

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

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.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#190

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee »

NickM wrote: post #156
sys_64738 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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? Because Amazon can easily go elsewhere, and most places have lower taxes than NYC. Giving them a ~10% off coupon on an extremely high tax rate is not the same as handing them money. You can object to the deal on principle, sure, but you're ignoring the fundamental reality of the situation; if NY…

They can't easily go anywhere else, that's why they picked an established area with tons of talent already in the immediate area. Why didn't they choose some small city in the middle of America where salaries would be less, real estate would be cheaper, and taxes would be lower? Because there is very little technical talent already in those places.

Amazon did this to themselves with their tone deaf "national search" and if anything they proved to everyone that Amazon needs NY more than NY needs Amazon. Otherwise, they would have picked any of the other numerous smaller cities that were on the radar of the search, but were not chosen.

Post reply on HN