5 ms·

Politicians (AOC included) represent their current constituents. Not future potential constituents who might move into their district, but people who live there

Politicians (AOC included) represent their current constituents. Not future potential constituents who might move into their district, but people who live there now. The key issue here is rising rent, and this is something Local politicians (AOC in particular) campaign on. A significant portion of people here would see their rents go up without seeing any additional benefits. How would you expect an elected official, who campaigned against higher rents, to justify not opposing Amazon?

kissickas 8y ago
I am not an all a fan of how Amazon went about this farcical "search" and haven't deeply researched the deal NYC gave them. That said, addressing rising rents by limiting the number of high-paying jobs in a city seems like one of the worst possible ways to approach the problem.
- leereeves 8y ago
  Not limiting the number of high-paying tech jobs in the Bay Area has been terrible for blue collar workers who don't own any land. People have been driven from their (former) homes by higher paid tech workers. I think it's easy to understand why people in Queens would fight against a similar fate.
  - TuringNYC 8y ago
    >> Not limiting the number of high-paying tech jobs in the Bay Area has been terrible for blue collar workers who don't own any land. I'd say limiting high-density housing is really what has brought down the Bay Area. In contrast, New York has mostly embraced high-density housing. Take a look at LIC: https://www.6sqft.com/queens-new-skyline-a-rundown-of-the-30-developments-coming-to-long-island-city/ https://www.6sqft.com/queens-new-skyline-a-rundown-of-the-30... When you build upwards, the sky is the limit, literally.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      I looked at the first seven of those; one was a hotel and the rest were all high-density luxury towers, not affordable housing for blue collar workers. For example: https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/us/the-forge https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/us/the-forge
      - TuringNYC 8y ago
        You're absolutely right, but I dont see what is wrong with that. When you build high-density luxury towers, it creates capacity and fewer people "push out" into bordering areas. Contrast this with the Bay Area where the lack of high-density luxury towers causes people to push miles out and buy homes. Would the Bay Area have a housing problem if there were ~20 more luxury high rises Palo Alto? Seems to be that would greatly relieve the upwards pressure on the locus around Palo Alto. Also, forcing people to move into low-density homes seems regressive. It can be an option.
        leereeves 8y ago
        I think that's probably true, and the Bay Area needs more high density housing, but lessening the impact is not eliminating the impact. So perhaps it's less harmful for the current residents of Queens, but it's still negative. Why should they not oppose that?
        TuringNYC 8y ago
        If we're trying to oppose all gentrification, we'd also have to - stop all jobs growth in Manhattan (10min subway ride to LIC) - and/or we'd have to put a cap on salaries (what happens to doctors? minimum wage? how do they pay med school loans?) - and/or ensure LIC residents dont commute to well-paying jobs in Manhattan - and/or ensure only low paying jobs are created in LIC (how many mechanics jobs and other non corporate jobs can LIC support? Why havent they already been created?) All of the above seem silly. At some point, you'd almost be breaking off LIC into a self-sufficient fiefdom in itself. The assumption would be that all the benefits that came from banding together as a city and creating a modern society were net negative to the residents of LIC. This seems quaint but doesn't feel right to me.
- cribbles 8y ago
  This assumes the higher-paying jobs would have gone to the district's representatives, instead of to out-of-town yuppies. I am open to being contracted on this, but my assumption is that Amazon's HQ2 would not have primarily created jobs for underserved Queens residents. My own experience in NYC's tech scene is that a plurality of tech workers come from outside the city, and I am skeptical that their presence nevertheless "lifts all boats" via Seamless orders and bar tabs.
  - TuringNYC 8y ago
    I'm pretty surprised to hear about the district-level focus here. I was born and raised in NYC and have always heard of the city as a single entity. NYC has a massive number of people who come from every district into Manhattan for jobs and leave at the end of the day. Having a district-level focus seems like a poor resolution -- should queens residents then conversely be restricted from working in Manhattan? It seems pretty regressive since poorer districts would get poorer.
    - fjp 8y ago
      It's about people getting priced out of their homes, their neighborhoods. Just from the news of Amazon, people in adjacent neighborhoods were told by landlords their rents would be increased significantly upon lease renewal. People grow up in their neighborhoods and are connected to them and proud of them. Their are ways to bring up a neighborhood without pricing its residents out of living there. The main issue that progressives took with all of this is that Amazon pays $0 in federal tax, demanded $3 billion in local tax breaks, and offered very little enforceable things in return. We can't just let huge companies run around asking major cities to bend over for them and offer up their money and their souls for almost nothing in return.
      - vonmoltke 8y ago
        > Amazon pays $0 in federal tax Citation to actual financial statements needed. Their most recent 10-K indicates they paid $1.2B in total taxes. > demanded $3 billion in local tax breaks No, they didn't. At least $2.5B of that is on the table for any company that wants to build and office for 25,000 people in LIC. > offered very little enforceable things in return Not sure what you mean here. The majority of the tax breaks are directly tied to headcount or construction. No hiring/construction == no credits.
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  I don't think that's the only way NYC politicians want to address rising rents. The question is, if a bunch of techies moving into an area is going to make life harder for the poor people that already live there, why would they want you?
- wefarrell 8y ago
  The median income of NY's 14th district is 52K. My mother in law makes about that working in a hotel in Manhattan and is an immigrant who has lived in the same apartment in this district for 20 years. In what way would Amazon moving in possibly be good for someone in her situation? I also live in this district but work in tech and have a market rate salary. Amazon moving in would be good for people like me, but the average resident of this district is much closer my MIL.
  - kissickas 8y ago
    Would your mother-in-law not rather work in a hotel closer to home? Not everyone has to work directly for Amazon in order to benefit from the investment. Increased numbers of high-paying jobs means increased spending and new businesses in the area, as well.
    - tivert 8y ago
      >> The median income of NY's 14th district is 52K. My mother in law makes about that working in a hotel in Manhattan and is an immigrant who has lived in the same apartment in this district for 20 years. In what way would Amazon moving in possibly be good for someone in her situation? > Would your mother-in-law not rather work in a hotel closer to home? Not everyone has to work directly for Amazon in order to benefit from the investment. Increased numbers of high-paying jobs means increased spending and new businesses in the area, as well. Sure, maybe she could work at a brand-spanking new hotel next to HQ2 in her former neighborhood -- after she's been driven out of it by rising rents caused by HQ2.
- skybrian 8y ago
  I don't know, it seems pretty directly based on supply and demand. People move to jobs. Other places would love to have the jobs, but they're not NYC. Let them win. What's wrong with that? It won't actually change much since Long Island City is still booming, but you could say the same thing about building housing; every little bit helps.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Nothing about the cancellation was a "limit". New York has not gone and closed up the gates. (That is illegal with a Constitution that guarantees free movement of labor.) Amazon is welcome to expand without a deal, and in fact they still are, just not a brand new HQ2.
carradjm 8y ago
She represents them to the federal government. She has no legal authority and really shouldn't have any political authority to override or influence decisions that state and city officials make. She is a federal officer, and the deal with Amazon was a city / state initiative. Her speaking out against Amazon was her speaking out against something that is not within her sphere of competence or within her elected sphere of influence.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > She has no legal authority and really shouldn't have any political authority to override or influence decisions that state and city officials make. She's a citizen of the state and city and, as such, should indeed have “political authority” to influence decisions state and city officials make.

kissickas 8y ago

I am not an all a fan of how Amazon went about this farcical "search" and haven't deeply researched the deal NYC gave them. That said, addressing rising rents by limiting the number of high-paying jobs in a city seems like one of the worst possible ways to approach the problem.

leereeves 8y ago
Not limiting the number of high-paying tech jobs in the Bay Area has been terrible for blue collar workers who don't own any land. People have been driven from their (former) homes by higher paid tech workers. I think it's easy to understand why people in Queens would fight against a similar fate.
- TuringNYC 8y ago
  >> Not limiting the number of high-paying tech jobs in the Bay Area has been terrible for blue collar workers who don't own any land. I'd say limiting high-density housing is really what has brought down the Bay Area. In contrast, New York has mostly embraced high-density housing. Take a look at LIC: https://www.6sqft.com/queens-new-skyline-a-rundown-of-the-30-developments-coming-to-long-island-city/ https://www.6sqft.com/queens-new-skyline-a-rundown-of-the-30... When you build upwards, the sky is the limit, literally.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    I looked at the first seven of those; one was a hotel and the rest were all high-density luxury towers, not affordable housing for blue collar workers. For example: https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/us/the-forge https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/us/the-forge
    - TuringNYC 8y ago
      You're absolutely right, but I dont see what is wrong with that. When you build high-density luxury towers, it creates capacity and fewer people "push out" into bordering areas. Contrast this with the Bay Area where the lack of high-density luxury towers causes people to push miles out and buy homes. Would the Bay Area have a housing problem if there were ~20 more luxury high rises Palo Alto? Seems to be that would greatly relieve the upwards pressure on the locus around Palo Alto. Also, forcing people to move into low-density homes seems regressive. It can be an option.
      - leereeves 8y ago
        I think that's probably true, and the Bay Area needs more high density housing, but lessening the impact is not eliminating the impact. So perhaps it's less harmful for the current residents of Queens, but it's still negative. Why should they not oppose that?
        TuringNYC 8y ago
        If we're trying to oppose all gentrification, we'd also have to - stop all jobs growth in Manhattan (10min subway ride to LIC) - and/or we'd have to put a cap on salaries (what happens to doctors? minimum wage? how do they pay med school loans?) - and/or ensure LIC residents dont commute to well-paying jobs in Manhattan - and/or ensure only low paying jobs are created in LIC (how many mechanics jobs and other non corporate jobs can LIC support? Why havent they already been created?) All of the above seem silly. At some point, you'd almost be breaking off LIC into a self-sufficient fiefdom in itself. The assumption would be that all the benefits that came from banding together as a city and creating a modern society were net negative to the residents of LIC. This seems quaint but doesn't feel right to me.
cribbles 8y ago
This assumes the higher-paying jobs would have gone to the district's representatives, instead of to out-of-town yuppies. I am open to being contracted on this, but my assumption is that Amazon's HQ2 would not have primarily created jobs for underserved Queens residents. My own experience in NYC's tech scene is that a plurality of tech workers come from outside the city, and I am skeptical that their presence nevertheless "lifts all boats" via Seamless orders and bar tabs.
- TuringNYC 8y ago
  I'm pretty surprised to hear about the district-level focus here. I was born and raised in NYC and have always heard of the city as a single entity. NYC has a massive number of people who come from every district into Manhattan for jobs and leave at the end of the day. Having a district-level focus seems like a poor resolution -- should queens residents then conversely be restricted from working in Manhattan? It seems pretty regressive since poorer districts would get poorer.
  - fjp 8y ago
    It's about people getting priced out of their homes, their neighborhoods. Just from the news of Amazon, people in adjacent neighborhoods were told by landlords their rents would be increased significantly upon lease renewal. People grow up in their neighborhoods and are connected to them and proud of them. Their are ways to bring up a neighborhood without pricing its residents out of living there. The main issue that progressives took with all of this is that Amazon pays $0 in federal tax, demanded $3 billion in local tax breaks, and offered very little enforceable things in return. We can't just let huge companies run around asking major cities to bend over for them and offer up their money and their souls for almost nothing in return.
    - vonmoltke 8y ago
      > Amazon pays $0 in federal tax Citation to actual financial statements needed. Their most recent 10-K indicates they paid $1.2B in total taxes. > demanded $3 billion in local tax breaks No, they didn't. At least $2.5B of that is on the table for any company that wants to build and office for 25,000 people in LIC. > offered very little enforceable things in return Not sure what you mean here. The majority of the tax breaks are directly tied to headcount or construction. No hiring/construction == no credits.
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
I don't think that's the only way NYC politicians want to address rising rents. The question is, if a bunch of techies moving into an area is going to make life harder for the poor people that already live there, why would they want you?
wefarrell 8y ago
The median income of NY's 14th district is 52K. My mother in law makes about that working in a hotel in Manhattan and is an immigrant who has lived in the same apartment in this district for 20 years. In what way would Amazon moving in possibly be good for someone in her situation? I also live in this district but work in tech and have a market rate salary. Amazon moving in would be good for people like me, but the average resident of this district is much closer my MIL.
- kissickas 8y ago
  Would your mother-in-law not rather work in a hotel closer to home? Not everyone has to work directly for Amazon in order to benefit from the investment. Increased numbers of high-paying jobs means increased spending and new businesses in the area, as well.
  - tivert 8y ago
    >> The median income of NY's 14th district is 52K. My mother in law makes about that working in a hotel in Manhattan and is an immigrant who has lived in the same apartment in this district for 20 years. In what way would Amazon moving in possibly be good for someone in her situation? > Would your mother-in-law not rather work in a hotel closer to home? Not everyone has to work directly for Amazon in order to benefit from the investment. Increased numbers of high-paying jobs means increased spending and new businesses in the area, as well. Sure, maybe she could work at a brand-spanking new hotel next to HQ2 in her former neighborhood -- after she's been driven out of it by rising rents caused by HQ2.
skybrian 8y ago
I don't know, it seems pretty directly based on supply and demand. People move to jobs. Other places would love to have the jobs, but they're not NYC. Let them win. What's wrong with that? It won't actually change much since Long Island City is still booming, but you could say the same thing about building housing; every little bit helps.
bobthepanda 8y ago
Nothing about the cancellation was a "limit". New York has not gone and closed up the gates. (That is illegal with a Constitution that guarantees free movement of labor.) Amazon is welcome to expand without a deal, and in fact they still are, just not a brand new HQ2.

carradjm 8y ago

She represents them to the federal government. She has no legal authority and really shouldn't have any political authority to override or influence decisions that state and city officials make. She is a federal officer, and the deal with Amazon was a city / state initiative. Her speaking out against Amazon was her speaking out against something that is not within her sphere of competence or within her elected sphere of influence.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> She has no legal authority and really shouldn't have any political authority to override or influence decisions that state and city officials make. She's a citizen of the state and city and, as such, should indeed have “political authority” to influence decisions state and city officials make.