11 ms·

Amazon Reconsidering Plan to Put Campus in New York City

67 points by bretpiatt 8y ago

bduerst 8y ago
https://outline.com/KECmzd https://outline.com/KECmzd
reustle 8y ago
Discussed here 9 hours ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19116064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19116064
- mortenjorck 8y ago
  The WSJ story doesn't appear to add much of anything new, but it does at least constitute some additional reporting from outside the complexifier.
ardit33 8y ago
No New Yorker was happy about the subsidies, especially since it was x4 the amount of the one Amazon got in D.C. Subway is running at full capacity, and real estate prices are already high. It was seen as a bad deal, and new yorkers just don't have a positive view of amazon. When your restaurant is already almost at full capacity, there is no need to lose money on a groupon campaign. I don't think anybody would have complained if these subsidies were done somewhere upstate, where the jobs are truly needed.
- tolstoy77 8y ago
  I'm not a new yorker. But I'm a 100% a fan of AOC and fully agree that Amazon has no business ruining NYC and causing gentrification to LIC. I can't help but feel for the families, businesses and communities this will disrupt.
- throwawaysea 8y ago
  Per this poll from 2 days ago, 69% of the public approves of HQ2 coming to NY, with support across all demographic groups. https://harrisx.com/2019/02/new-poll-shows-overwhelming-supp.. https://harrisx.com/2019/02/new-poll-shows-overwhelming-supp.... ------ Other key findings from the poll include: 85% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will create good jobs for New Yorkers and Queens residents 77% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will improve the economy of New York City 70% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will raise New York City property values 68% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will help make New York City an East Coast tech hub 58% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will raise the tax revenues New York needs for education, transportation, and other vital services 55% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will create new opportunities for local and small businesses
  - mjfl 8y ago
    You mean to tell me that the Hacker News commenter you replied to is clueless and completely out of touch? No way!
    - ardit33 8y ago
      Read my answer again. I said people are not unhappy about Amazon moving here (after all, they already have offices here), but for the large subsidies Cuomo conceded to them. The questions on that survey don't mention any thing about subsidies... period. Change it to: "Do you believe Amazon should be given 3B subsidies to come to NYC?" and the replies will look very different...
      - ojbyrne 8y ago
        Since you asked: “nobody is denying that a large company creating jobs, is a bad thing” I think you meant that “nobody is asserting that a large company creating jobs, is a bad thing”
    - 8y ago
- melling 8y ago
  When do you think they can fix the subway? It has been neglected for decades. It handles about 5.5 million people a day. An extra 25,000 people can’t be accommodated? Everytime I hear someone complain about this I wonder if they consider how many cars will not be needed during rush hour because Amazon chose NYC. Hey, what do you think about the massive spending plan the Democrats are working on to solve climate change? Do people even try to connect the dots? Newark to Long Island City is about 15 miles. Plenty of affordable real estate there. With a little urban planning and better mass transit, NYC could handle 10 Amazons.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    Having more people in NYC is great for climate change, because the urban environment is a lot less carbon intensive. In what other city could Amazon locate where fewer net cars would be added to the roads?
- xvilka 8y ago
  Well, Amazon has nothing to do with the city neglect of subway and other public transportation development. See an examples of Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing (all of them are more populous than NYC), where they build new stations, new roads for public transit, optimize old ones, etc. It is always sad to see the city of planetary importance struggling to maintain itself.
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    Part of it is New York's system is much older than the rest of your examples, Tokyo didn't really expand beyond a single tunnel till 50s-60s, Beijing opened in the 60s and Shanghai only started construction in the mid 80s. Then on top of that the city of New York isn't actually in charge fully so (like just happened) if they try to do something disruptive but critical the governor can come and derail the whole plan. I don't mean to say it excuses the mismanagement but it does explain a lot of the problems. Also it's not like they're not building new stuff in 2017 the second avenue subway opened with 3 new stations.
- boron1006 8y ago
  Weren't most of the subsidies through the already existing "Excelsior program"? https://esd.ny.gov/sites/default/files/Excelsior_Overview_2017.pdf https://esd.ny.gov/sites/default/files/Excelsior_Overview_20... I'm just confused about what people want. The program was long derided for creating too few jobs: https://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/politics-on-the-hudson/2017/06/07/new-york-job-creation-investigation-big-break-for-business/101745402/ https://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/politics-on-the-hu... Now that it's Amazon, it's creating too many jobs and (therefore) costing too much money? I don't support tax subsidies in general, but the program was already signed into law, you can't just change the rules that you set yourself just because you realize in hindsight it's a bad deal. Honestly, the people of NYS elected Cuomo twice, they should have to live with the consequences.
throwaway2048 8y ago
Its pretty much crystal clear that the entire HQ2 song and dance was designed from the outset to extract concessions from Washington D.C. and NYC (and also collect a shitload of data on leverage they might have in other locales for stuff like amazon warehouses). Ask yourself if amazon needed this huge competition to build in the two default-choice locales. It is absolutely a total sham. Good on NYC for opposing this, its likely that this is just Amazon trying to get even more out of the deal.
- whoisjuan 8y ago
  Yes. But the rhetoric around this is wrong. Opposing people's rationale is: "wow, the local government is cutting down a check of 3 billion to a large corporation, fuck them! They should invest in schools and public transportation, etc". But that's not what a tax incentive is. The incentive is: bring your business here, create jobs, add economic fluidity with your workforce and you don't have to pay 3 billion dollars in taxes. See how different is that? If Amazon decides to pull out, they just don't bring those jobs and don't get those tax incentives...but there's no extra 3 billion to spend in your community. There's literally 0 dollars more. You're not saving 3 billion in state and municipal funds. Those 3 billion in taxes (whether you exempt someone from paying them or not) only happen if Amazon (or any company) exists in that region. The worst part is that some elected state officials are getting behind this rhetoric and that's kind of hard to understand. Either they are doing it for populism which is terrible, or they are doing it because they are ignorant which is even worse.
  - matthewowen 8y ago
    This is only true if the company's behavior is changed by the incentive, and the parent's comment was about the view that it isn't. Moreover, in the global sense we have been deprived of revenue. Amazon was going to open somewhere. This competition means that they overall pay less tax than without it, because they extracted concessions. If we care about protecting the public purse in the general sense, it's reasonable to object to these tactics.
  - cbanek 8y ago
    > But that's not what a tax incentive is. The incentive is: bring your business here, create jobs, add economic fluidity with your workforce and you don't have to pay 3 billion dollars in taxes. It's true, but it's not like your employees also get a tax break. It seems again like the workers are shouldering the burden. The only reason why this works is because it's a race to the bottom where big companies get huge benefits to their taxes because they can shop around (just like Amazon did with the whole HQ2 thing), and then pick who treats them best. Most businesses don't have that kind of leverage. If no state offered any tax incentives like this, then companies would just end up paying more taxes, right? We could get into moving your company to another country, but for Amazon this would mean a lot of things, like increased shipping times, customs, etc. From https://theweek.com/articles/754007/are-corporate-tax-incentives-worth https://theweek.com/articles/754007/are-corporate-tax-incent... "Economists say that most of the time, the incentives are counterproductive — a zero-sum game in which jobs created in one community come at the expense of jobs lost somewhere else. The real winners are companies, which are able to play municipalities against one another so as to be freed of paying taxes other businesses (and homeowners) do. The result is a "race to the bottom," leaving cities with less to spend on infrastructure improvements and public education. At the same time, companies increase expenses for communities by drawing on public resources, including sewer systems, roads, power lines, and schooling for workers' children. Last year, Wisconsin pledged $3 billion in incentives to electronics manufacturer Foxconn to build a plant in Racine County that the company says will eventually employ 13,000 workers. But according to Wisconsin's own estimates, the cost to taxpayers per job created is $230,700, and the state won't recoup its investment until 2043." And now more recently, Foxconn has been saying they won't even have as many jobs as they thought! https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-foxconn-plant-hiring-target-20190205-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-foxconn-plant...
vaadu 8y ago
He should relocate the jobs to Virginia with the Crystal Project. I live in Northern Virginia. For $750M we should get it all.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
narrator 8y ago
Amazon should put their headquarters in Las Vegas. Preferably some distance from the strip in some big generic suburbia office park. That place feels soulless and it will be perfect for techies who live in Internet land and just use meatspace for working out, dating and the bathroom facilities.
rblion 8y ago
Atlanta would be a good city for Amazon I think. World's busiest airport. They could eventually acquire Turner Broadcasting Systems, CNN. Really aim for world domination. Maybe partner with UPS? Delta? Coca-cola? They could benefit from the booming entertainment industry as well.
- reneherse 8y ago
  Traffic levels and public transit aren't good here, which was one of the HQ2 requirements. Great city otherwise, however.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
throwawaysea 8y ago
I don't understand the indignant opposition towards this deal to be honest. All but $505m of the ~$3b in subsidies here comes from programs that already existed in NY State and NYC (Excelsior, ICAP, and REAP). Would you give up $3b over 10 years (and just $505m above programs that are broadly available) to attract business that will provide an incremental $13.5B in new tax revenue and $186B in GSP over 25 years? That is a _tremendous_ ROI, the kind that typically does not exist in the market, and a $505m capital grant (the primary Amazon-specific concession) is a small price to secure it. The 9:1 return they projected on this deal is the best such program NY State and NYC will have ever run. To put it into context, the Film Tax Credit program had a 1.15:1 ROI. We can argue all day about whether the HQ2 search was a bluff or sham or whatever, but there is no reasonable claim to certainty here - and hence negotiation enters the picture to turn something uncertain (Amazon MAY come to NYC) into certain (Amazon WILL come to NYC). > The construction is expected to create an average of 1300 direct construction jobs annually through 2033. Overall, the project is estimated to create more than 107,000 total direct and indirect jobs, over $14 billion in new tax revenue for the State and a net of $13.5 billion in City tax revenue over the next 25 years. The project provides a 9:1 return on investment. > According to an economic impact study by REMI, Inc., a world leader in dynamic forecasting and policy analysis, the Amazon project will generate over $186 billion in Gross State Product for the New York State economy over the initial 25 years. REMI also projects over $14 billion in total new tax revenue for the State (in 2019 dollars), with annual revenues growing from $10.8 million in 2019 to nearly $1 billion in 2043. The City forecasts $13.5 billion in total new tax revenue. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-and-mayor-de-blasio-announce-amazon-selects-long-island-city-new-corporate https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-and-mayor-de...
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  None of these deals ever come with enforcement imposed on the economic projections used to justify them, whether for corporate headquarters or sports stadiums. If these things are so profitable for the taxpayers, why doesn't Amazon guarantee the projected numbers, paying any eventual shortfall directly to the state and city? (Yes, there would need to be a way to measure whatever metrics are used.) For most of these deals, companies make promises that are used to make the deal politically palatable, but since they are not penalized for failing to meet them, and therefore frequently do so.
m23khan 8y ago
Toronto says Hello!
godlikeme 8y ago
None of these deals ever come with enforcement imposed on the economic projections used to justify them, whether for corporate headquarters or sports stadiums. If these things are so profitable for the taxpayers, why doesn't https://godlike.me/ https://godlike.me/ Amazon guarantee the projected numbers, paying any eventual shortfall directly to the state and city? (Yes, there would need to be a way to measure whatever metrics are used.)

67 points by bretpiatt 8y ago

bduerst 8y ago

https://outline.com/KECmzd https://outline.com/KECmzd

reustle 8y ago

Discussed here 9 hours ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19116064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19116064

mortenjorck 8y ago
The WSJ story doesn't appear to add much of anything new, but it does at least constitute some additional reporting from outside the complexifier.

ardit33 8y ago

No New Yorker was happy about the subsidies, especially since it was x4 the amount of the one Amazon got in D.C. Subway is running at full capacity, and real estate prices are already high. It was seen as a bad deal, and new yorkers just don't have a positive view of amazon. When your restaurant is already almost at full capacity, there is no need to lose money on a groupon campaign. I don't think anybody would have complained if these subsidies were done somewhere upstate, where the jobs are truly needed.

tolstoy77 8y ago
I'm not a new yorker. But I'm a 100% a fan of AOC and fully agree that Amazon has no business ruining NYC and causing gentrification to LIC. I can't help but feel for the families, businesses and communities this will disrupt.
throwawaysea 8y ago
Per this poll from 2 days ago, 69% of the public approves of HQ2 coming to NY, with support across all demographic groups. https://harrisx.com/2019/02/new-poll-shows-overwhelming-supp.. https://harrisx.com/2019/02/new-poll-shows-overwhelming-supp.... ------ Other key findings from the poll include: 85% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will create good jobs for New Yorkers and Queens residents 77% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will improve the economy of New York City 70% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will raise New York City property values 68% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will help make New York City an East Coast tech hub 58% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will raise the tax revenues New York needs for education, transportation, and other vital services 55% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will create new opportunities for local and small businesses
- mjfl 8y ago
  You mean to tell me that the Hacker News commenter you replied to is clueless and completely out of touch? No way!
  - ardit33 8y ago
    Read my answer again. I said people are not unhappy about Amazon moving here (after all, they already have offices here), but for the large subsidies Cuomo conceded to them. The questions on that survey don't mention any thing about subsidies... period. Change it to: "Do you believe Amazon should be given 3B subsidies to come to NYC?" and the replies will look very different...
    - ojbyrne 8y ago
      Since you asked: “nobody is denying that a large company creating jobs, is a bad thing” I think you meant that “nobody is asserting that a large company creating jobs, is a bad thing”
  - 8y ago
melling 8y ago
When do you think they can fix the subway? It has been neglected for decades. It handles about 5.5 million people a day. An extra 25,000 people can’t be accommodated? Everytime I hear someone complain about this I wonder if they consider how many cars will not be needed during rush hour because Amazon chose NYC. Hey, what do you think about the massive spending plan the Democrats are working on to solve climate change? Do people even try to connect the dots? Newark to Long Island City is about 15 miles. Plenty of affordable real estate there. With a little urban planning and better mass transit, NYC could handle 10 Amazons.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  Having more people in NYC is great for climate change, because the urban environment is a lot less carbon intensive. In what other city could Amazon locate where fewer net cars would be added to the roads?
xvilka 8y ago
Well, Amazon has nothing to do with the city neglect of subway and other public transportation development. See an examples of Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing (all of them are more populous than NYC), where they build new stations, new roads for public transit, optimize old ones, etc. It is always sad to see the city of planetary importance struggling to maintain itself.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  Part of it is New York's system is much older than the rest of your examples, Tokyo didn't really expand beyond a single tunnel till 50s-60s, Beijing opened in the 60s and Shanghai only started construction in the mid 80s. Then on top of that the city of New York isn't actually in charge fully so (like just happened) if they try to do something disruptive but critical the governor can come and derail the whole plan. I don't mean to say it excuses the mismanagement but it does explain a lot of the problems. Also it's not like they're not building new stuff in 2017 the second avenue subway opened with 3 new stations.
boron1006 8y ago
Weren't most of the subsidies through the already existing "Excelsior program"? https://esd.ny.gov/sites/default/files/Excelsior_Overview_2017.pdf https://esd.ny.gov/sites/default/files/Excelsior_Overview_20... I'm just confused about what people want. The program was long derided for creating too few jobs: https://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/politics-on-the-hudson/2017/06/07/new-york-job-creation-investigation-big-break-for-business/101745402/ https://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/politics-on-the-hu... Now that it's Amazon, it's creating too many jobs and (therefore) costing too much money? I don't support tax subsidies in general, but the program was already signed into law, you can't just change the rules that you set yourself just because you realize in hindsight it's a bad deal. Honestly, the people of NYS elected Cuomo twice, they should have to live with the consequences.

throwaway2048 8y ago

Its pretty much crystal clear that the entire HQ2 song and dance was designed from the outset to extract concessions from Washington D.C. and NYC (and also collect a shitload of data on leverage they might have in other locales for stuff like amazon warehouses). Ask yourself if amazon needed this huge competition to build in the two default-choice locales. It is absolutely a total sham. Good on NYC for opposing this, its likely that this is just Amazon trying to get even more out of the deal.

whoisjuan 8y ago
Yes. But the rhetoric around this is wrong. Opposing people's rationale is: "wow, the local government is cutting down a check of 3 billion to a large corporation, fuck them! They should invest in schools and public transportation, etc". But that's not what a tax incentive is. The incentive is: bring your business here, create jobs, add economic fluidity with your workforce and you don't have to pay 3 billion dollars in taxes. See how different is that? If Amazon decides to pull out, they just don't bring those jobs and don't get those tax incentives...but there's no extra 3 billion to spend in your community. There's literally 0 dollars more. You're not saving 3 billion in state and municipal funds. Those 3 billion in taxes (whether you exempt someone from paying them or not) only happen if Amazon (or any company) exists in that region. The worst part is that some elected state officials are getting behind this rhetoric and that's kind of hard to understand. Either they are doing it for populism which is terrible, or they are doing it because they are ignorant which is even worse.
- matthewowen 8y ago
  This is only true if the company's behavior is changed by the incentive, and the parent's comment was about the view that it isn't. Moreover, in the global sense we have been deprived of revenue. Amazon was going to open somewhere. This competition means that they overall pay less tax than without it, because they extracted concessions. If we care about protecting the public purse in the general sense, it's reasonable to object to these tactics.
- cbanek 8y ago
  > But that's not what a tax incentive is. The incentive is: bring your business here, create jobs, add economic fluidity with your workforce and you don't have to pay 3 billion dollars in taxes. It's true, but it's not like your employees also get a tax break. It seems again like the workers are shouldering the burden. The only reason why this works is because it's a race to the bottom where big companies get huge benefits to their taxes because they can shop around (just like Amazon did with the whole HQ2 thing), and then pick who treats them best. Most businesses don't have that kind of leverage. If no state offered any tax incentives like this, then companies would just end up paying more taxes, right? We could get into moving your company to another country, but for Amazon this would mean a lot of things, like increased shipping times, customs, etc. From https://theweek.com/articles/754007/are-corporate-tax-incentives-worth https://theweek.com/articles/754007/are-corporate-tax-incent... "Economists say that most of the time, the incentives are counterproductive — a zero-sum game in which jobs created in one community come at the expense of jobs lost somewhere else. The real winners are companies, which are able to play municipalities against one another so as to be freed of paying taxes other businesses (and homeowners) do. The result is a "race to the bottom," leaving cities with less to spend on infrastructure improvements and public education. At the same time, companies increase expenses for communities by drawing on public resources, including sewer systems, roads, power lines, and schooling for workers' children. Last year, Wisconsin pledged $3 billion in incentives to electronics manufacturer Foxconn to build a plant in Racine County that the company says will eventually employ 13,000 workers. But according to Wisconsin's own estimates, the cost to taxpayers per job created is $230,700, and the state won't recoup its investment until 2043." And now more recently, Foxconn has been saying they won't even have as many jobs as they thought! https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-foxconn-plant-hiring-target-20190205-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-foxconn-plant...

vaadu 8y ago

He should relocate the jobs to Virginia with the Crystal Project. I live in Northern Virginia. For $750M we should get it all.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

narrator 8y ago

Amazon should put their headquarters in Las Vegas. Preferably some distance from the strip in some big generic suburbia office park. That place feels soulless and it will be perfect for techies who live in Internet land and just use meatspace for working out, dating and the bathroom facilities.

rblion 8y ago

Atlanta would be a good city for Amazon I think. World's busiest airport. They could eventually acquire Turner Broadcasting Systems, CNN. Really aim for world domination. Maybe partner with UPS? Delta? Coca-cola? They could benefit from the booming entertainment industry as well.

reneherse 8y ago
Traffic levels and public transit aren't good here, which was one of the HQ2 requirements. Great city otherwise, however.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

throwawaysea 8y ago

I don't understand the indignant opposition towards this deal to be honest. All but $505m of the ~$3b in subsidies here comes from programs that already existed in NY State and NYC (Excelsior, ICAP, and REAP). Would you give up $3b over 10 years (and just $505m above programs that are broadly available) to attract business that will provide an incremental $13.5B in new tax revenue and $186B in GSP over 25 years? That is a _tremendous_ ROI, the kind that typically does not exist in the market, and a $505m capital grant (the primary Amazon-specific concession) is a small price to secure it. The 9:1 return they projected on this deal is the best such program NY State and NYC will have ever run. To put it into context, the Film Tax Credit program had a 1.15:1 ROI. We can argue all day about whether the HQ2 search was a bluff or sham or whatever, but there is no reasonable claim to certainty here - and hence negotiation enters the picture to turn something uncertain (Amazon MAY come to NYC) into certain (Amazon WILL come to NYC). > The construction is expected to create an average of 1300 direct construction jobs annually through 2033. Overall, the project is estimated to create more than 107,000 total direct and indirect jobs, over $14 billion in new tax revenue for the State and a net of $13.5 billion in City tax revenue over the next 25 years. The project provides a 9:1 return on investment. > According to an economic impact study by REMI, Inc., a world leader in dynamic forecasting and policy analysis, the Amazon project will generate over $186 billion in Gross State Product for the New York State economy over the initial 25 years. REMI also projects over $14 billion in total new tax revenue for the State (in 2019 dollars), with annual revenues growing from $10.8 million in 2019 to nearly $1 billion in 2043. The City forecasts $13.5 billion in total new tax revenue. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-and-mayor-de-blasio-announce-amazon-selects-long-island-city-new-corporate https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-and-mayor-de...

jkaplowitz 8y ago
None of these deals ever come with enforcement imposed on the economic projections used to justify them, whether for corporate headquarters or sports stadiums. If these things are so profitable for the taxpayers, why doesn't Amazon guarantee the projected numbers, paying any eventual shortfall directly to the state and city? (Yes, there would need to be a way to measure whatever metrics are used.) For most of these deals, companies make promises that are used to make the deal politically palatable, but since they are not penalized for failing to meet them, and therefore frequently do so.

m23khan 8y ago

Toronto says Hello!

godlikeme 8y ago

None of these deals ever come with enforcement imposed on the economic projections used to justify them, whether for corporate headquarters or sports stadiums. If these things are so profitable for the taxpayers, why doesn't https://godlike.me/ https://godlike.me/ Amazon guarantee the projected numbers, paying any eventual shortfall directly to the state and city? (Yes, there would need to be a way to measure whatever metrics are used.)