4 ms·

As much as the anti-gentrification politicians would claim a small victory, this is a loss for NYC and the future development / resilience of its economic base.

As much as the anti-gentrification politicians would claim a small victory, this is a loss for NYC and the future development / resilience of its economic base. Cities will keep on losing this kind of battle until some form of government or policy arises to counter the power of corporations (which are de facto increasingly taking the role of governments). Under our current regulations and incentives, I'm actually glad to see Amazon flex its political capability and teach NYC a lesson in what happens when you let vocal minority dictate public policy. Let examples like this teach us how broken our laws are. Note I am equally glad to see some day that government (federal, state) come up with policies that stop cities and states from undercutting each other to get a temporary revenue / population / popularity boost at the expense of giving away the farm just to get it (until you find out it wasn't worth it, and get to try and remember that at the next election). Or god forbid, actually create policies that in the long-term stimulate as many jobs as a corporation might in a single swoop.

elicash 8y ago
> this is a loss for NYC and the future development / resilience of its economic base. I don't see any reason to prioritize the "economic base" over the people currently living there. Those things do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. They can, but often do not. Those elected officials seem, to me, to be representing the best interests of the people who voted for them. What's best for the tax base of a certain geography is often at odds with the people currently living somewhere.
- JBReefer 8y ago
  LIC is essentially a neighborhood cut from whole cloth - it used to be all taxi yards and vacant warehouses, bit of high end printing. No one lived there until very recently, and the people that do are rich as fuck - it's basically a discount Midtown East. The poor people who live in the nearby projects came out strongly in _favor_ of Amazon opening up and lobbied the city hard - turns out Amazon also needs janitors, cafes etc.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
djsumdog 8y ago
Isn't this exactly the opposite? Amazon would have destroyed the general economy in NYC like they did in Seattle. This is the city ignoring the big corporation and listening to their people. NYC doesn't need Amazon. It needs to fix it's rail system.
- marcell 8y ago
  And how do you fix the rail system? With money from... taxes... from well paid workers, for example. I think a lot of people get so caught up in hating on tech workers and opposing gentrification they forget where the money comes from.
  - asdff 8y ago
    Taxes from 25,000 making low six figures pales in comparison to the incentives handed to the corporation. What is a better investment for NY, handing 3b to amazon, putting 3b directly into the rail system, or putting 3b in an investment fund and making use of the dividends? I'm not sure, but I can't help but think that if amazon figures 3b is a good deal for them, then it is an irresponsible use of public funds to enrich large % shareholders of amazon rather than having that public money 100% go to public use. Amazon isn't in it to improve LIC or NY, they are in it to raise their share price at the end of the day and wouldn't care less if Queens burned to the ground and sunk into the east river as long as earnings reports remained positive.
    - marcell 8y ago
      Suppose each worker makes $150k/year in income and spends $50k a year. That would come out to about $187M in income taxes and $125M in sales taxes each year from the directly employed individuals. There is likely to additional revenue as well. The economic impact studies commissioned by the mayor and governor put the expected revenue in the $20B+ range over 25 years. It’s become very stylish to rage against corporations. I wish people would take a more rational point of view. We shouldn’t be hating on successful businesses for fun. Edit: also, I’m not sure, but isn’t the $3B a reduction in taxes Amazon would have paid? So it’s not like NY had that money to begin with. It’s jist a reduction in what they would receive. Ref: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/amazon-hq2-leaving-new-york-city-would-mean-tax-revenue-loss-2019-2 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/amazon-...

elicash 8y ago

> this is a loss for NYC and the future development / resilience of its economic base. I don't see any reason to prioritize the "economic base" over the people currently living there. Those things do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. They can, but often do not. Those elected officials seem, to me, to be representing the best interests of the people who voted for them. What's best for the tax base of a certain geography is often at odds with the people currently living somewhere.

JBReefer 8y ago
LIC is essentially a neighborhood cut from whole cloth - it used to be all taxi yards and vacant warehouses, bit of high end printing. No one lived there until very recently, and the people that do are rich as fuck - it's basically a discount Midtown East. The poor people who live in the nearby projects came out strongly in _favor_ of Amazon opening up and lobbied the city hard - turns out Amazon also needs janitors, cafes etc.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

djsumdog 8y ago

Isn't this exactly the opposite? Amazon would have destroyed the general economy in NYC like they did in Seattle. This is the city ignoring the big corporation and listening to their people. NYC doesn't need Amazon. It needs to fix it's rail system.

marcell 8y ago
And how do you fix the rail system? With money from... taxes... from well paid workers, for example. I think a lot of people get so caught up in hating on tech workers and opposing gentrification they forget where the money comes from.
- asdff 8y ago
  Taxes from 25,000 making low six figures pales in comparison to the incentives handed to the corporation. What is a better investment for NY, handing 3b to amazon, putting 3b directly into the rail system, or putting 3b in an investment fund and making use of the dividends? I'm not sure, but I can't help but think that if amazon figures 3b is a good deal for them, then it is an irresponsible use of public funds to enrich large % shareholders of amazon rather than having that public money 100% go to public use. Amazon isn't in it to improve LIC or NY, they are in it to raise their share price at the end of the day and wouldn't care less if Queens burned to the ground and sunk into the east river as long as earnings reports remained positive.
  - marcell 8y ago
    Suppose each worker makes $150k/year in income and spends $50k a year. That would come out to about $187M in income taxes and $125M in sales taxes each year from the directly employed individuals. There is likely to additional revenue as well. The economic impact studies commissioned by the mayor and governor put the expected revenue in the $20B+ range over 25 years. It’s become very stylish to rage against corporations. I wish people would take a more rational point of view. We shouldn’t be hating on successful businesses for fun. Edit: also, I’m not sure, but isn’t the $3B a reduction in taxes Amazon would have paid? So it’s not like NY had that money to begin with. It’s jist a reduction in what they would receive. Ref: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/amazon-hq2-leaving-new-york-city-would-mean-tax-revenue-loss-2019-2 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/amazon-...