4 ms·

> The backlash was mostly about the tax breaks and government subsidies that would have been given. The argument was that New York is New York and doesn’t need

> The backlash was mostly about the tax breaks and government subsidies that would have been given. The argument was that New York is New York and doesn’t need to bribe companies to put big offices here. If that is the case, where are the calls to end the Industrial & Commercial Abatement Program[1], the Relocation and Employment Assistance Program[2], and the Excelsior Jobs Program[3]? That is where the vast majority of the credits came from. The backlash was because it was Amazon that wanted to take advantage of those programs, and do so after that ridiculous and condescending dog-and-pony show they called a search. Now, some subset of opposition surely is from people who think no company that wants to build a large complex in LIC with 25,000 employees deserves billions in subsidies. If that is the case, those people need to work against the root causes and stop acting like this $3B package was some special deal for Amazon. [1] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/finance/benefits/benefits-industrial-and-commercial-abatement-program-icap.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/finance/benefits/benefits-industri... [2] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/finance/benefits/business-reap.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/finance/benefits/business-reap.pag... [3] https://esd.ny.gov/excelsior-jobs-program https://esd.ny.gov/excelsior-jobs-program

untog 8y ago
I don't think it's all that surprising that individuals are more motivated to protest something specific rather than the economic development programs that allow it to happen. I (and many others I've spoken to) don't have a problem with the idea of economic subsidy to support businesses moving to NYC, but objected to a company the size (and success) of Amazon doing so. I can imagine there would be widespread support for a move to limit these programs to smaller startup companies, and maybe we'll even see some local politicians propose that. But there's a city/state issue here. Few people would object to Amazon creating a massive HQ and 25k jobs in Albany, even if they would in NYC. So any answer would have to take that into account too.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  See, that's the thing. Talking about the $3B in credits like it was all a special deal for Amazon hides the scope of these programs and blocks those conversations on what limits (if any) they should have. You won't see widespread support for limiting these programs arise at all if the people who would support it don't realize that they are hanging out waiting for the next huge corporation to come along and take advantage of them without the self-important bullshit Amazon pulled.
CPLX 8y ago
This argument is obvious nonsense. There was no outcry to prevent Amazon from using general programs that were open to all applicants, the problem was with the special extras they negotiated. There's no reason to think that Amazon would have been facing opposition if they'd just announced a new project in LIC and applied for the normal programs. They didn't do that.
- murph-almighty 8y ago
  Even if this wasn't over the extras, this would still be an obvious indicator that _maybe we're giving away too much money with these programs_.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  > This argument is obvious nonsense. No, it isn't. > There was no outcry to prevent Amazon from using general programs that were open to all applicants, the problem was with the special extras they negotiated. People were outraged over the $3B. Less than 20% of that was special extras for Amazon. I don't think anyone would have been any less outraged if the number was $2.5B instead. Particularly since most of the arguments boil down to "billion-dollar corporations don't need tax breaks from NYC/NYS". > There's no reason to think that Amazon would have been facing opposition if they'd just announced a new project in LIC and applied for the normal programs. Yeah, because nobody would have known. Look at all the people who assume other large companies in NYC don't get any tax breaks simply based on not hearing about said tax breaks.
  - CPLX 8y ago
    > I don't think anyone would have been any less outraged if the number was $2.5B instead I don't think Coldplay is very good. We all have opinions. If they wanted to see what would have happened in that scenario they should have tried it. > Yeah, because nobody would have known. Look at all the people who assume other large companies in NYC don't get any tax breaks simply based on not hearing about said tax breaks. Well yeah. They launched a massive national PR campaign to showcase that they were demanding the highest level of special treatment. They literally engineered an auction where they were asking cities to compete to see who could give them the most taxpayer dollars. A lot of New Yorkers weren't interested in "winning" that competition. Not only could they still take advantage of the existing programs, it's almost certain that they actually still will to some extent. And as you'll see when it happens few will protest that because it wasn't the thing people were protesting against. They were protesting special treatment. Many New Yorkers felt, justifiably, like the richest man in the world and the most valuable company in the world should play by the same fucking rules as everyone else. I live here and I'm one of them.

untog 8y ago

I don't think it's all that surprising that individuals are more motivated to protest something specific rather than the economic development programs that allow it to happen. I (and many others I've spoken to) don't have a problem with the idea of economic subsidy to support businesses moving to NYC, but objected to a company the size (and success) of Amazon doing so. I can imagine there would be widespread support for a move to limit these programs to smaller startup companies, and maybe we'll even see some local politicians propose that. But there's a city/state issue here. Few people would object to Amazon creating a massive HQ and 25k jobs in Albany, even if they would in NYC. So any answer would have to take that into account too.

vonmoltke 8y ago
See, that's the thing. Talking about the $3B in credits like it was all a special deal for Amazon hides the scope of these programs and blocks those conversations on what limits (if any) they should have. You won't see widespread support for limiting these programs arise at all if the people who would support it don't realize that they are hanging out waiting for the next huge corporation to come along and take advantage of them without the self-important bullshit Amazon pulled.

CPLX 8y ago

This argument is obvious nonsense. There was no outcry to prevent Amazon from using general programs that were open to all applicants, the problem was with the special extras they negotiated. There's no reason to think that Amazon would have been facing opposition if they'd just announced a new project in LIC and applied for the normal programs. They didn't do that.

murph-almighty 8y ago
Even if this wasn't over the extras, this would still be an obvious indicator that _maybe we're giving away too much money with these programs_.
vonmoltke 8y ago
> This argument is obvious nonsense. No, it isn't. > There was no outcry to prevent Amazon from using general programs that were open to all applicants, the problem was with the special extras they negotiated. People were outraged over the $3B. Less than 20% of that was special extras for Amazon. I don't think anyone would have been any less outraged if the number was $2.5B instead. Particularly since most of the arguments boil down to "billion-dollar corporations don't need tax breaks from NYC/NYS". > There's no reason to think that Amazon would have been facing opposition if they'd just announced a new project in LIC and applied for the normal programs. Yeah, because nobody would have known. Look at all the people who assume other large companies in NYC don't get any tax breaks simply based on not hearing about said tax breaks.
- CPLX 8y ago
  > I don't think anyone would have been any less outraged if the number was $2.5B instead I don't think Coldplay is very good. We all have opinions. If they wanted to see what would have happened in that scenario they should have tried it. > Yeah, because nobody would have known. Look at all the people who assume other large companies in NYC don't get any tax breaks simply based on not hearing about said tax breaks. Well yeah. They launched a massive national PR campaign to showcase that they were demanding the highest level of special treatment. They literally engineered an auction where they were asking cities to compete to see who could give them the most taxpayer dollars. A lot of New Yorkers weren't interested in "winning" that competition. Not only could they still take advantage of the existing programs, it's almost certain that they actually still will to some extent. And as you'll see when it happens few will protest that because it wasn't the thing people were protesting against. They were protesting special treatment. Many New Yorkers felt, justifiably, like the richest man in the world and the most valuable company in the world should play by the same fucking rules as everyone else. I live here and I'm one of them.