AMAZON TO CITY: DROP DEAD

[jserraglio]

Vows To Nix Deal To Build HQ2 In LIC.

After much thought and deliberation, we’ve decided not to move forward with our plans to build a headquarters for Amazon in Long Island City, Queens. For Amazon, the commitment to build a new headquarters requires positive, collaborative relationships with state and local elected officials who will be supportive over the long-term. While polls show that 70% of New Yorkers support our plans and investment, a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City.
We are disappointed to have reached this conclusion—we love New York, its incomparable dynamism, people, and culture—and particularly the community of Long Island City . . . .

[John F]

To tell the truth, I'm glad of it, for purely selfish reasons. Moving a large number of well-paid employees into NYC would surely cause rents to rise, not just in Queens, and I need this not to happen. And whatever economic benefit this might bring to the city would probably do me no good.

[Belle]

To tell the truth, I'm glad of it, for purely selfish reasons. Moving a large number of well-paid employees into NYC would surely cause rents to rise, not just in Queens, and I need this not to happen. And whatever economic benefit this might bring to the city would probably do me no good.

I don't think you have much to worry about on that front:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/19/techno ... index.html

[John F]

I don't have to worry because Amazon won't be coming here. But if they were, we wouldn't be talking about warehouse workers being paid a minimum wage but employees at the headquarters level, including many managers, who are paid well above the company's median.

[lennygoran]

To tell the truth, I'm glad of it, for purely selfish reasons.

Personally I think it was a mistake on New York's part-it plays into Trump's hands in addition to all the lost jobs. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is imo becoming a bit of a pain. Regards, Len

[John F]

Amazon was going to cost New York "nearly $3 billion in government incentives," according to the NY Times. The deal was going to be approved by the state legislature, if not unanimously, but Amazon wanted to see universal rejoicing, which is rare in NYC, and withdrew in what looks to me like a fit of pique.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/nyre ... ueens.html

Trump has nothing to do with the politics of New York State and New York City. He gains nothing either way. As for those "lost" jobs, neither I nor you are in the job market so it doesn't affect us personally - and anyway, no jobs have actually been lost. We'll never know how many jobs might have been created by hiring in New York rather than by transfers from other Amazon offices. (By the way, Amazon is anti-union, which won them no friends here.)

Anyway, it's not as if unemployment were a big problem in New York City; the current rate is 4.3%, lower than in the country as a whole. We're doing OK. I think it's doubtful that the addition or 25,000 "high-paying" tech-oriented jobs would do much good for the kind of people who are out of work here. The only New Yorkers who would clearly benefit directly would have been the landlords.

[jserraglio]

We're doing OK. I think it's doubtful that the addition or 25,000 "high-paying" tech-oriented jobs would do much good for the kind of people who are out of work here. The only New Yorkers who would clearly benefit directly would have been the landlords.

25,000 jobs x Amazon's median salary for its high-paid tech workers of $150,000/yr might exceed $3.5 billion/yr, resulting in an indirect benefit to the unemployed and underemployed in the region more likely find work providing goods and services to the new gentry.

[John F]

Obviously I doubt that very much, and from a selfish point of view, it doesn't matter anyway.

[jserraglio]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is imo becoming a bit of a pain.

She and the other coastal arrivistes in the party are much more likely to get MagaMan reelected than Independents like Howard Schultz. I think the Dems should nominate a centrist. I could live with Biden or Booker. Nix to Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand, Harris, etc.

[jserraglio]

from a selfish point of view, it doesn't matter anyway.

Most New Yorkers apparently would've welcomed an infusion of high-paying jobs into the city's economy. Nashvillians mightn't have, NYC's loss being their gain.

[John F]

There's many a slip. For example, we can't predict how many New York residents with high-paying technical jobs at other companies will be hired away, leaving the number of such jobs unchanged, or indeed whether there's enough of a talent pool out there to fill all those positions, or whether Amazon exaggerated its plans to make the deal more attractive, or...

More generally, we in New York City hold employers to standards that most other cities and states don't. For example, Walmart has been barred from opening any stores or facilities here, because of how it treats its employees. No doubt this has reduced the dollar flow into the city from potential customers and employees, but we evidently believe that sacrifice is worth making on a point of principle. I guess that's what being liberal means.

[jserraglio]

As I understand it, Amazon was not proposing to build a warehouse in LIC. So comparing Amazon high-end HQ jobs to those at Walmart stores is like comparing honeycrisp apples to rotten tomatoes because they both look red! But I guess that's what being myopic means.

Amazon opposes unionization for its employees? Yes, but who was going to build Amazon's massive 8-million-square-feet corporate campus in LIC? Non-union construction workers? In NYC? I don't think so.

Also, if the number of high paying tech jobs in the city would be left essentially unchanged by Amazon's hiring in NY, then the objections from the LIC community about projected gentrification caused by an influx of new residents with fat wallets driving up the COL for the rest would make little sense.

Actually, in the big picture, their objections DO make little sense.

Talk about a great city cutting off its nose to spite its face!

With millions of jobs and a bustling economy, New York can withstand the blow, but experts say the decision by the e-commerce giant to walk away and take with it 25,000 promised jobs could scare off other companies considering moving to or expanding in the city, which wants to be seen as the Silicon Valley of the East Coast.

In effect ceding tech turf to Boston, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Austin.

[lennygoran]

Amazon was going to cost New York "nearly $3 billion in government incentives," according to the NY Times.

John I have to disagree-according to the NYTimes "There were all sorts of problems with the deal New York cut to bring Amazon to the city, and Amazon is no paragon, but its abrupt withdrawal was a blow to New York, which stood to gain 25,000 jobs and an estimated $27 billion in tax revenue over the next two decades.

[/u]

As for Trump I believe he will try to use this for his reelection-he's already started gloating-jobs are a big deal across the rust belt.

As an aside we've recently been getting over to that part of Long Island City by the ferry from Pier 11-a great trip! Regards, Len

[lennygoran]

I think the Dems should nominate a centrist. I could live with Biden or Booker. Nix to Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand, Harris, etc.

I'm not sure yet-I listened to Warren's speech--it was excellent imo-I like Harris too-otoh going too far to the left could hurt us-we'll see how it all plays out-I think the Dems have so many good candidates but I do think they could overreach and blow it all. Oops don't want to forget Amy K! Regards, Len

[John F]

Amazon Isn’t Interested in Making the World a Better PlaceBy
Kara Swisher
Feb. 15, 2019

The announcement on Thursday that Amazon has canceled its plan to build a headquarters in New York City is no victory. It’s no defeat, either. What it is, to use a Big Apple term, is meh, yet another indication that the dulcet attractions of tech have lost their charm for many and that the business — which has been this country’s most innovative and promising and often its most inspirational — is just that: a business, like any other, out for itself and itself alone, and most definitely not changing the world for the better.

That was the cry of tech from its start — especially of the internet types like the Amazon head, Jeff Bezos. Bankers never said they were going to make the world a better place. Nor did makers of toilet paper or potato chips. Maybe soda makers like Coca-Cola said it in their ads, but we were all in on the joke when they told us that sugar water would bring the world together.

But Silicon Valley truly believed its own myths — that tech leaders had arrived from the mountaintop to deliver the gleaming devices and magical software that would transform humanity, and that they would never be evil. Most of all, they really believed they were more than whatever they actually were doing, whether slinging better ads by sucking up our data, or taking a vig for getting us a date or a car, or in Amazon’s case, selling us piles and piles of stuff in really cheap and convenient ways.

That’s why only a few years ago, it would have been easy for Amazon to saunter into a place like Long Island City, Queens. In fact, the online giant’s effort to decide where its “second headquarters” would be was originally greeted with enthusiasm, with multiple municipalities going to comical lengths to bring in the promised 25,000 high-paying jobs.

There is, of course, no such thing as a second headquarters — this was a marketing circus from the start. But everyone bought into the narrative, especially the media, painting it as if it was going to be a much more transformative opportunity than it ever could be. “Saturday Night Live” got at the heart of it with a sketch a year ago, in which the reps from various cities bowed and scraped, offering all manner of delicious foods and financial gimmes to the world’s richest man.

It was satire, but really, was it? It cut too close to home for many, who wondered why, in an era when all kinds of public services are being cut and the city’s infrastructure is crumbling, a trillion-dollar corporation was getting so much. When it was revealed exactly how much — $3 billion in tax breaks after largely secret negotiations between civil potentates like Gov. Andrew Cuomo and faceless Amazon execs — the situation was ripe for disruption. (Was it curious that Mr. Bezos was never the ringmaster in these negotiations? Not to me. He often stays behind the scenes in these situations.)

Tech people are always bragging about how they “move fast and break things,” as Facebook’s now-unfortunate motto put it, while seeking out new markets. This time, the disruption came from newly emboldened activists, with high-profile figures like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (whose district is adjacent to the Queens area where the complex was planned) weighing in with some choice words about the deal. “Can everyday people come together and effectively organize against creeping overreach of one of the world’s biggest corporations?,” she tweeted this month, part of a relentless series of these kinds of challenges.

Amazon, which never seemed to think it needed to do anything but assert that future tax revenues and other theoretical economic benefits would allow the deal to pay for itself, wasn’t prepared for this kind of scrutiny. So it decided to pull out before it got any hotter. With the prospect of drawn-out negotiations — the cost of not bringing everyone on board at the start — and the glare of attention such a back-and-forth would bring, the always calculating company came to the obvious calculation that it was not worth the trouble.

In other words: “Thank u, next.”

It was a little funny that Mayor Bill de Blasio, who was a big proponent of the deal until he wasn’t on Thursday, tried to slap back at Amazon for not being able to stand the heat of New York’s kitchen. Twitter having become the means of governing now, he tweeted: “You have to be tough to make it in New York City.” Oh stop. Amazon is plenty tough, but it just decided to fold up its circus tent and move on. It turns out it won’t even take that show anywhere else and instead says it will simply double down on its other second headquarters in the Washington area, which pretty much tells you that this was all a charade from the beginning.

Many New Yorkers had cheered on the opposition, assuming that it might persuade Amazon to strike a better deal with the city. They mostly agreed that more tech jobs would be good for New York (good salaries and more money for retailers, restaurants and the real estate industry) more than bad (gentrification, congestion). But no one wanted to end up like San Francisco — which has become a modern hellscape even as internet companies build their airy HQs and become ever richer. There, tax giveaways only exacerbated income inequality and offered no solutions.

Amazon certainly could have been more creative in proposing some balms for those ills in New York. For example, could it have entered into a cool public-private partnership to fix the junky subways its employees would have ridden, perhaps in new and innovative ways? You know, making the world a better place? No, I guess not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/opin ... tml?action

[jserraglio]

Amazon is no paragon, but its abrupt withdrawal was a blow to New York, which stood to gain 25,000 jobs and an estimated $27 billion in tax revenue over the next two decades.

Right. An imbroglio both for the city and the company but more embarrassingly for the city which just got stood up on Valentine's Day.

Heads should roll after this fiasco.

[lennygoran]

Right. An imbroglio both for the city and the company but more embarrassingly for the city which just got stood up on Valentine's Day.

I cherish NYC and am so sorry it turned out this way-I love walking in areas that have been gentrified and would sure love to see Long Island City become a new spectacular area-even without Amazon it could still happen? Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

I agree, having lived there long enough to bond with the city and consider it my second home.

So shame on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for cheering Amazon's decision to renege. She doesn't even represent that district. She needs to work on getting rid of the GREEN NEW DEAL behind her own ears.

[lennygoran]

So shame on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for cheering Amazon's decision to renege. She doesn't even represent that district. She needs to work on getting rid of the GREEN NEW DEAL behind her own ears.

I hope Nancy can simmer her down-we just can't afford to give Trump any help. I subjected myself to his whole rose garden speech today-one of his worst ever. On the emergency he declared:

"‘I didn’t need to do this’: Trump just kneecapped his own case for a ‘national emergency’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... d49dbf462b

Now you can see why Rod needed to where a wire! Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

MagaMan. Nutjob. Weakling. Even Coulter now accuses him of scamming the Trumpen proletariat. A Russian fellow traveler into the bargain.

[jserraglio]

MagaMan's national man-made emergency manufactured in the Rose Garden today has just put Texas in play in 2020. Let's see if the GOP can lose Texas and retain the Presidency.

[John F]

Why the Amazon Deal Collapsed: A Tech Giant Stumbles in N.Y.’s Raucous Political Arena
By J. David Goodman and Karen Weise
Feb. 15, 2019

A senior executive from Amazon, one of the world’s biggest companies, found himself last weekend in a showdown with a suburban state senator. The executive, Brian Huseman, was trying to find out whether the New York state senator, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, would keep an obscure state board from blocking Amazon’s ambitious plans to expand in New York City.

It was the second phone call in two days between Mr. Huseman and Ms. Stewart-Cousins, who had just risen to power as Democratic majority leader, and once again, she tried to explain to him the politics of Albany. Ms. Stewart-Cousins said in an interview that she told Mr. Huseman, “We just need to move on,” indicating that Amazon had to let the approval process run its course.

It was not the response that Amazon wanted. For Amazon, long accustomed to highly deferential treatment from localities across the country, the phone call was a further indignity after weeks of relentless criticism from lawmakers, unions and progressive activists that the company feared was staining its reputation. On Thursday, Amazon abruptly announced that it was canceling the deal, under which the company had promised to create more than 25,000 jobs on a new campus in Long Island City, Queens, in return for nearly $3 billion in government incentives.

An examination of the deal’s collapse showed that Amazon badly misjudged how it would be received in New York, apparently because the company has rarely ventured into such a raucous political arena as it has pursued a breakneck expansion in recent years. This account was pieced together from dozens of interviews this week with government officials, Amazon representatives, lobbyists and others. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity to relay closed-door deliberations.

The company’s retreat capped several days of intense behind-the-scenes maneuvering between government officials and Amazon executives, including efforts by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to woo unions and Mayor Bill de Blasio to try to reach Jeff Bezos, the company’s chief executive. On Monday, Mr. Cuomo and Mr. de Blasio, bitter rivals who had put aside their differences to mount a bid for an Amazon site, met in Albany to discuss how to pacify unions that had voiced strong objections to the company. Mr. de Blasio then called a top executive in the company, seeking assurances that the deal was still on. The executive did not indicate that it was in trouble.


Public housing residents rallied on Monday, when a second poll came out showing broad support around the state for the deal. “We’re working to make sure that folks from our neighborhood could benefit from those jobs; there’s going to be a lot of jobs,” Bishop Mitchell G. Taylor, a community leader, said on Monday. Bishop Taylor grew up in the Queensbridge Houses, the large public housing development in Long Island City.

On Tuesday morning, senior aides to the governor and mayor talked by phone with Mr. Huseman about next steps, including how to promote the jobs that the company was planning for New York. On the ground, the efforts appeared to be paying off: More local elected leaders were declaring their support for the deal. “N.Y. loves Amazon” buttons began appearing on lapels in the city.

By Wednesday, a senior Amazon executive in charge of real estate, John Schoettler, arrived from Seattle for a meeting convened by Mr. Cuomo in his Manhattan offices between Amazon and unions. By the end, the unions and the executives seemed to be making progress toward a resolution. That night, the company decided internally to pull the plug.

The choice blindsided Mr. Cuomo and Mr. de Blasio. “Out of nowhere, they took their ball and went home,” Mr. de Blasio said on Thursday night. He learned of the decision in a phone call from Jay Carney, an Amazon vice president and a former spokesman for President Barack Obama, according to a person briefed on the call. Even as the deal was in peril, Mr. Carney, who oversees the company’s press and government relations, never went to New York to meet with officials, three people with knowledge of the meetings said.

Amazon can deliver toothpaste in traffic-snarled Manhattan on the same day an order is placed. But when it came to navigating the politics of New York, the company appeared out of step, a giant stumbling onto a political stage that — despite its data-driven success — it never fully understood. “Amazon underestimated the power of a vocal minority and miscalculated how much it needed to engage with those audiences to make HQ2 a success,” Joseph Parilla, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, said, referring to the second headquarters search.

The company, in particular, failed to develop a robust strategy to address the growing influence of the progressive left in New York, led by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of Queens, who was elected in November and was a fervent skeptic of the deal.

The political winds changed so swiftly that local lawmakers in Queens who had signed a letter in 2017 trying to woo Amazon refashioned themselves as champions of the opposition in recent months. One of them, State Senator Michael Gianaris, refused repeatedly to even meet with Amazon representatives despite at least three requests. So, too, did Corey Johnson, the speaker of the City Council; Mr. Johnson held hearings instead of the private meetings Amazon requested. Amazon met with 35 of the 51 council members, and more had been scheduled for this week. Mr. Johnson’s staff did meet with the company.

A spokeswoman for Amazon declined to comment for this article. But two people involved in internal discussions at Amazon said the company’s concerns were not primarily that the deal would fail to receive government approval. Executives were confident it would cross the finish line. The company instead felt that, with little sign that the opposition was dissipating, it was staring down a decades-long commitment to a political climate in which everything the company did would be scrutinized. “Amazon had to think about what a long-term relationship with New York City would look like, and based on the experiences with local and state politicians to date, concluded it would be difficult at best,” one of the people said.

Amazon executives involved in the negotiations said they were frustrated that the economic benefits of the project — a winning argument with many business leaders and some community members, including public housing residents — failed to sway some officials. “What we were hearing from people — small business owners, educators, community leaders — was completely different than what we were getting from the local elected officials,” said one of the people involved with the Amazon side.

Those feelings, and Amazon’s eventual retreat, were foreshadowed by testimony from Mr. Huseman last month at the City Council: “We were invited to come to New York,” he said, adding pointedly, “and we want to invest in a community that wants us.” Instead, the company saw how its plans for Queens had become such a flash point that they turned into an issue in the Feb. 26 special election for public advocate, a citywide position with a big megaphone. Company officials worried that the debate over the project could drag on and become ensnared in the 2021 mayoral election, and beyond.

“In most places, people are just doing cartwheels and somersaults when Amazon comes in,” said Alex Pearlstein, vice president at Market Street Services, which helps cities attract employers. “New York just didn’t need them as bad as most places do.”

Amazon grew in Seattle for almost two decades with little civic engagement. Initially, most of its buildings were built by an outside developer. Neither Mr. Bezos, nor any Amazon executive, attended the groundbreaking ceremony for its headquarters that the mayor and governor threw. By about 2015, as Amazon was developing its own buildings, and with roughly 25,000 employees in Washington State, it started engaging more, albeit slowly.

Yet even as housing costs soared in the booming city, Amazon did not take public positions in debates over how to alleviate the affordability crunch. It largely saw its role as creating high-paying jobs, and the city’s job to accommodate them. So last year, when Amazon said it might halt its growth locally if the city approved a tax on large employers to fund homeless services and low-income housing, it sent a shock throughout Seattle. The city was not accustomed to the company playing hardball, let alone commenting on politics.

The trouble in New York City began last year with a hostile City Council hearing in December, and then another last month. The company endured hours of attacks on its plans to come to New York, and on its business practices — particularly its stance against unions — in general. Protesters heckled. Council members forced an Amazon official to declare the company’s anti-union stance on the record. The moment resonated for executives: Amazon was not accustomed to being forced to respond publicly on its policies and operations.

A turning point came on Feb. 4, when Ms. Stewart-Cousins, the new Democratic leader in the State Senate, selected Mr. Gianaris, the state senator and one of Amazon’s most vocal opponents, to the board with the power to block the deal. It was clear the opposition would not go away soon. Mr. Cuomo could refuse to appoint Mr. Gianaris, of Queens. But the company wanted to know: What would happen then?

So on Feb. 8 and then again on Feb. 9, Amazon’s representatives spoke on the phone with Ms. Stewart-Cousins. She told the company’s representatives that Mr. Cuomo was planning to reject Mr. Gianaris. But she could not say precisely what would happen next, the people said. Who would be named in his place? Amazon wanted certainty that the next person selected would not be a roadblock: The fate of its campus could not hang on the whims of an unnamed state senator on a board — the Public Authorities Control Board — that few could name. She did not offer any guarantees, but thought the Senate and the company would be able to work together. “Obviously, the Legislature would have a role to play,” she said in an interview.

The next time she heard from Mr. Huseman was Thursday, just as Amazon announced that the deal was dead. “He was saying, look, the political climate was just really, really hard,” Ms. Stewart-Cousins said. “He mentioned the City Council, the City Council speaker, the state, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. The political climate was really rough.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/nyre ... 2-nyc.html

[jserraglio]

A subway-train wreck on both sides of the tunnel, but especially for the pols in NYC. Who will be the first to mount the scaffold for this fiasco? Cuomo? de Blasio? Gianaris? Ocasio-Cortez?

Amazon’s decision to ditch HQ2 is a black eye for NYC's tech scene

Amazon (AMZN) said on Thursday it’s cancelling plans to build one of its headquarters in New York City’s Long Island City neighborhood in Queens following local opposition to the move.

The cancellation will not only impact the city by depriving it of the company’s 25,000 proposed jobs, but it could also have a chilling effect on the region’s technology scene . . . . https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-g ... 31433.html

[jserraglio]

WSJ
OP-ED
PEGGY NOONAN

A last word on Amazon and New York City. The story’s over but it doesn’t stop hurting. Twenty-five thousand jobs lost, maybe 40,000 when all is said and done, and of all kinds—high-tech, management, white-collar, blue. All the construction, and the signs and symbols of a coming affluence: the streets lit bright, the sidewalks busy, shops and restaurants humming, hiring. The feeling of safety you have when you pass doorways on the street at night and can hear laughter and conversation on the other side.

This is not just “a loss,” it is a whole lost world. And it is a watershed event for my town. After Amazon’s withdrawal no major American company will open a new headquarters here for at least a generation. No CEO is going to do what Jeff Bezos did, invest all that time and money, do all the planning, negotiating and deciding, only to see it collapse in bitter headlines because the politicians you’re making the deal with can’t control their own troops, and because in the end it is summoning a humiliation to do big business in a town whose political life is dominated by a wild and rising progressive left.
Their issues were tax breaks and unionization.
Should corporations, especially big, megarich ones, be given tax benefits for locating in a city or state? No, actually. They should come in simply as grateful and eager new citizens, especially in a place like New York, since there’s nothing like us. But that is not the world in which we live. In this world politicians are desperate to expand the tax base and brag about creating jobs. Companies can and do press every advantage. New York City and state offered Amazon almost $3 billion in future tax breaks. (Newark and New Jersey offered $7 billion; everyone’s desperate.) New York state said that over the next 25 years Amazon’s presence would yield $186 billion in positive economic impact, including $14 billion in additional tax payments. The progressives who dominate New York’s City Council charged those numbers came from consultants hired to support the deal. Fine, assume they doubled the actual benefits: That would mean $93 billion in positive economic impact, $7 billion in tax payments. Still a huge benefit to the people of New York, and a lifeline for a state experiencing, according to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, more than $2 billion in tax shortfalls because the rich keep moving out.
Jeff Bezos was the rich guy who wanted to move in.
Amazon was knocked because it wouldn’t promise to unionize. I favor private unions: A certain claimed equality, a certain balance between a huge company’s management and the working man or woman, is not the worst thing in the world. And people more than ever need to belong to something. If Amazon were unionized it would cost them, and, warm little humanitarians that they are, they would immediately pass the cost on to consumers. That cost increase might function as a little boost to neighborhood retailers. And we all want neighborhood stores to get a boost because they’re our neighbors. They talk to us; they are part of the community; they make life more human. But you can’t expect Amazon, which is a business, to walk in declaring: We’ll not only help you unionize, we’ll organize your first strike!
When Amazon withdrew, Mayor Bill de Blasio, in his embarrassment and fear, decided he’d bluff his way through with tough talk. Amazon ran because they couldn’t take the heat. “You have to be tough to make it in New York City.”
Oh you he-man, you stud. Those bland little Amazon drones are real softies. They work for the richest man in the world and their job is to make him richer and if they don’t, they’re fired. Half Mr. Bezos’ business plan involves selling things for a dime less. They’d strangle you for a nickel.
Here is the truth: New York’s progressives weren’t tough, they were weak. They don’t know how to play this game.
You want to be tough and mean, get what you want, and keep those jobs for your constituents? Here was the play:
You don’t unleash the furies and hold hearings where crowds jeer, hiss and chant “GTFO, Amazon has got to go.” You don’t put stickers on every lamp pole saying “Amazon crime.” You don’t insult and belittle their representatives. You don’t become Tweeting Trotsky.
You quietly vote yes, go to the groundbreaking, and welcome our new partner in prosperity. Then you wait. And as soon as the new headquarters is fully built and staffed, you shake them down like a boss.
You move on local issues—high rents, crowded subways. To help on unionization you get the next Democrat in the White House to sic the National Labor Relations Board. You go to your friends in the big New York papers and say, “Amazon’s cruel, the shifts are so long the elevator operators are peeing in bottles, Bezos dropped his wallet and when the receptionist picked it up it broke her back.”
And Mr. Bezos, whose life is changing, who by now is a prince of the city with the fanciest friends—he can’t stand being killed every day! Also it’s 2021 and he’s worth $250 billion, and he says, “What the hell, give them half of what they want.”
What’s he going to do, leave? The place has been built, billions have been spent.
That’s real left-wing hardball: You catch it, then you skin it.
They let their prey go. What second-rate slobs run this town.
Opponents came out early, hard and full of rage. Jimmy Van Bramer, the preening councilman whose district included Amazon’s site: “The mayor and the governor caved to the richest man on Earth and then handed the bill to each and every New Yorker.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t wait a week after her election. Politico, Nov. 13: “She ripped the reported tax breaks the company will receive and described the local community’s reaction to the news as ‘outrage.’ ” Actually the community was for it; ideologues were against it. Amazon is rich, she said in a tweet: “The idea that it will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need MORE investment, not less, is extremely concerning for residents here.” Sometimes she seemed to think New York was literally handing Mr. Bezos a $3 billion check. Sometimes she seemed to know that wasn’t true but found it helpful to mislead. Like Mr. de Blasio she scrambled in apparent shock when Amazon backed out, and chose a triumphalist dodge. “Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed.” No, everyday New Yorkers did not do it. They wanted the jobs. It was you, Fredo.
It would all be funny if it weren’t for that lost world. The 25,000 families getting a new paycheck, the mothers and fathers suddenly able to send their kids to the local Catholic school, the busy sidewalks, the lights. Instead, the books unbought in the store that didn’t open. The talent unhired and unmet.
Think of it that way and it breaks your heart. Really: breaks it.

[John F]

That's way, way over the top. It's not 25,000 actual new jobs that were lost but the promise of such jobs that Amazon might or might not have fulfilled. And since, from what I've read, these were to be tech-orienged jobs, we can't know how many unemployed New Yorkers would have gotten any of them and how many would have been taken by carpet baggers, pushing up housing costs, crowding the public transportation even more, and adversely affecting New Yorkers' standard of living more than their Amazon dollars could have improved it out there in Long Island City. For better or worse it's not going to happen, let it go.

[jserraglio]

It's not 25,000 actual new jobs that were lost but the promise of such jobs that Amazon might or might not have fulfilled. And since, from what I've read, these were to be tech-orienged jobs, we can't know how many unemployed New Yorkers would have gotten any of them and how many would have been taken by carpet baggers . . . . For better or worse it's not going to happen, let it go

For better or worse, I can't let it go as easily as the city so shortsightedly and complacently let Amazon go.

And since when does a great city like New York adopt the mindset of the post-bellum South and call outsiders carpetbaggers? Unlikely too that scores of cities, including NYC, competed with one another and offered billions in deferred taxes to Amazon for a mere chimera.

[lennygoran]

> It's not 25,000 actual new jobs that were lost but the promise of such jobs that Amazon might or might not have fulfilled. <

I think it would have created a lot of jobs for support services for Long Island City-the majority of the people in that district supported Amazon coming in. Well NYC had its chance-$24 billion lost in revenue-not a good thing. Regards, Len

[John F]

NYC was offering $3 billion in incentives up front. How much the good citizens of Long Island City might ultimately have gained in local business is speculative, but it can't possibly have been $24 billion from 25,000 Amazon employees - that's about $1 million each.

[jserraglio]

25,000 hi-tech Amazon workers x $150,000 avg salary/year = around $3,750,000,000 circulating/yr in one form or another.

Even blasé New Yorkers might admit this ain't chump change.

Not counting the significant stimulative effect of 4 billion/year over time.

Add in the spin-off effects over time of the construction of 8,000,000 square feet of new office space, not to mention wages going into construction workers' pockets.

The $3 billion in incentives would not have been real money paid to Amazon upfront, merely a discount on a future tax bill that would have totaled significantly more than $3 billion. A discount on a list price set by the seller is not real money.

In my view this SNAFU was not just myopia, but NYopia!

[Belle]

I appreciate the opportunity here to read and learn about your biggest city and its political shenanigans. While I was reading both the lengthy NYT article and that of the WSJ I was struck by the difference in tone and attitude between both reports, and I must say I agree in principle with jserraglio - based upon what I've read. It also is sharply analogous to what is happening in our state of Queensland with the (Indian-owned) Adani Coal Mine.

Firstly, I'm wary of any company which arrives in town and offers to establish its business on the proviso of government "incentives". Bezos is a cynical man; he's not one of the world's richest for nothing. He knows people are desperate for work and he's going to use that to leverage himself some tax-saving economic advantages. Last time I looked that wasn't illegal, but I think it provides an insight into the 'you need me more than I need you' mindset. In this particular instance it seems to have backfired spectacularly for everybody. A super business-savvy individual with skills in 'the deal' and who has amassed a considerable fortune through ruthless exploits could probably have proven useful in keeping Amazon and winning some concessions for the government in the longer term. But when you put these things in the hands of politicians and apparatchiks negotiations are more likely to fail. Only a person, or persons, with deep and adept understanding of the business world could have waved this one through.

Secondly, it's so very reminiscent to me of 'Gulliver's Travels' where the giant is covered by little people busying themselves trying to control the situation. How prescient Swift was on matters political, social and economic. The big picture was completely lost in this instance for want of better negotiators. And this comment drew my attention: The company, in particular, failed to develop a robust strategy to address the growing influence of the progressive left in New York,

So, business needs a 'robust strategy' to function effectively in NYC!! And since when is that "progressive"? Quite the contrary. From my experience 'a robust strategy' usually has most companies heading in the opposite direction. And the people who will be going without those jobs in NYC and who demonstrably wanted them can contemplate that at their unwanted leisure. Far from the headline of this thread "Amazon to City: Drop Dead" I'd say it's "City to Amazon: Drop Dead". And you can kill a company's plans in many more ways than insisting they pay for housing for the homeless, demanding they have a 'social responsibility'. They might think as I do; I pay you lots of tax and there's my social responsibility right there. But if a company demands and gets 'incentives' it actually implies increased "social" obligations because the taxpayer is already doing the subsidizing. I say again, an excellent negotiator was sorely needed to wade through this chewing gum with Amazon. It could have been a win/win.

In our Adani coal mine, the city dwellers and inner, urban green left don't want coal mines. The working people of Queensland have been hung out to dry by 'lawfare' and political activism and one side of politics which thinks the demise of coal is "wonderful" and "excellent". Suicide rates rise and urban elitism exist conjointly. In my more than 60 years I have never been so afraid of where all this is heading - for both our countries. We each have a two-tiered society with a large cohort neither caring nor knowing about the other half of it.

I'm going to bite the bullet and say this: once upon a time that was the core business for the US Democrats.

Food for thought:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nDEaHx2iN0

[John F]

It's been asked, I think with good reason, why the 8th largest company in the US, with annual revenues of $178 billion, should receive any incentive at all to set up shop in the financial and cultural capital of the nation. And considering that the other new HQ, to be in Arlington VA across the Potomac from Washington DC, came with a much smaller incentive of $573 million, nearly all of it contingent on Amazon actually creating those high-paying jobs, the $3 billion incentive offered by our governor in essentially closed negotiations looks not only excessive but, to me, rather fishy. Anyway, it wasn't NYC that called the deal off, it was Amazon, as soon as it appeared that they might not get all of that $3 billion.

[Belle]

It's been asked, I think with good reason, why the 8th largest company in the US, with annual revenues of $178 billion, should receive any incentive at all to set up shop in the financial and cultural capital of the nation. And considering that the other new HQ, to be in Arlington VA across the Potomac from Washington DC, came with a much smaller incentive of $573 million, nearly all of it contingent on Amazon actually creating those high-paying jobs, the $3 billion incentive offered by our governor in essentially closed negotiations looks not only excessive but, to me, rather fishy. Anyway, it wasn't NYC that called the deal off, it was Amazon, as soon as it appeared that they might not get all of that $3 billion.

Yes, that was the first comment I made!! However, I think the rest of what I said still stands and a savvy negotiator could have saved all of this from disaster. It just cannot be either/or. Not in the current state of your and our economies. When we buy a house or a car we bargain ruthlessly with the seller/dealer; on a much grander scale this is what should have happened with Amazon. It appears to me their claim for $3 billion was an ambit one which could easily have been altered or removed altogether. Years in business have taught me to play hard ball. My self-employed winemaking son is learning those very same hard lessons.

[John F]

How can you negotiate with a corporation whose position, evidently, was take it or leave it? Amazon's peremptory withdrawal, and their announced decision not to create those "lost" 25,000 high-paying jobs elsewhere, is part of what makes their intentions look questionable and the whole deal smell fishy.

[Belle]

How can you negotiate with a corporation whose position, evidently, was take it or leave it? Amazon's peremptory withdrawal, and their announced decision not to create those "lost" wt,000 high-paying jobs elsewhere, is part of what makes their intentions look questionable and the whole deal smell fishy.

I take your point, but you can ALWAYS negotiate. Amazon wouldn't have said they were coming if they didn't want to negotiate that ambit demand about the 'incentives'. It seems, from what I've read, that the roadblocks were too much for them ("robust strategies") and this needs to be fixed to create wins. Meanwhile, Americans are hurting and losing jobs. I've seen it all before; a big player comes to town and people group together to make it extremely difficult for them. This is what is happening in Australia in the resource industry, as we speak. Amazon would already have invested in this proposal, having done the legwork so they're probably not walking away so much as running.

Sometimes we cannot have absolutely everything our own way.

[John F]

Amazon wouldn't have said they were coming if they didn't want to negotiate

What makes you believe that? To the contrary, Amazon appears only to have agreed to come to NYC on the basis of a sweetheart deal agreed to in private with the governor. We don't know how that agreement was reached - that's part of the problem - but from the way it ended there can't have been much give and take, which is the essence of negotiating. Instead, the city and state were to give and Amazon was to take. The moment others not in on the "negotiations" began to question the deal, instead of answering the questions Amazon was out of there. Like I said, take it or leave it.

[lennygoran]

> people group together to make it extremely difficult for them. <

Belle a minority of people-on a state, city , Queens and LIC level --the majority at all these levels wanted it. I agree Amazon could have done better. I think it's a very big loss for NY at all these levels. The billions loss make me real sad-that money could have come in handy for our subway and infrastructure. Regards, Len

[John F]

a minority of people-on a state, city , Queens and LIC level --the majority at all these levels wanted it.

That's what Amazon claimed, but have you seen any independently conducted polls that tell us what public opinion really was? I've been Googling around and haven't found anything. And how well informed were those polled? Amazon was conducting a high-powered public relations campaign which, of course, accentuated the positive and eliminated the negative, and they sold the governor and mayor who became part of the campaign.

The billions loss make me real sad-that money could have come in handy for our subway and infrastructure.

If the city and state have $3 billion to throw around, they should spend it directly on the subway and infrastructure, which need help right now, instead of giving it to a huge corporation that didn't really need it and had no plans for capital development here other than building its own HQ.

[lennygoran]

That's what Amazon claimed, but have you seen any independently conducted polls that tell us what public opinion really was?...If the city and state have $3 billion to throw around, they should spend it directly on the subway and infrastructure, which need help right now

John as you probably know from googling there's plenty out there on the polls-how accurate or questionable they are is way beyond my ability to figure out. As for throwing 3 billion around I thought it was not something that NYC would just hand out to Amazon-it was more like that they would just pay 3 billion less in taxes-maybe I don't have that right. Attached 2 poll results which you may be able to interpret better than me? Regards, Len





1. In New York, public polling as recently as last week showed that a majority of New Yorkers supported the state’s deal with Amazon. But Amazon’s opponents among community groups, unions and public officials were fierce, and they held the power to stymie the deal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/upsh ... itics.html


2. New York officials have mounted a firm resistance to Amazon’s plan to open a 25,000-person office in Queens. But a new poll shows they may not have support from the majority of their constituents.

Researchers from the Sienna College Research Institute surveyed 778 registered voters in New York between Feb. 4-7 and 56 percent of them said that they approve of the deal. The New Yorkers polled were reminded that Amazon is eligible for up to $3 billion in state and city incentives for the project.

Those incentives are a major sticking point for opponents of the deal, a group that includes elected officials, labor leaders, and activists.

New York State Sen. Michael Gianaris, who represents Queens, is a leader of the opposition movement. He has held protests and publicly criticized the deal’s lack of transparency and the incentives Amazon could receive.

Last week, the New York Senate named Gianaris to a key oversight board where his vote could derail the Amazon deal. A few days later, The Washington Post reported Amazon was having second thoughts about its plans in New York. Sienna conducted its poll after that report was published.

Support for the Amazon project is strongest in the suburbs, with 66 percent of survey respondents saying they approved. In New York City proper, 58 percent said they approved of the deal and 35 percent said they disapproved.

The results square with a December poll by Quinnipiac University that showed 57 percent of registered New York City voters approve of the deal.

https://www.geekwire.com/2019/poll-show ... 2-project/

[jserraglio]

If the city and state have $3 billion to throw around, they should spend it directly on the subway and infrastructure, which need help right now, instead of giving it to a huge corporation

NY wasn't gonna give Amazon 3 billion! That's a misconception. The "gift" would've taken the form of a discount on a future tax bill that would've far exceeded that amount over time.

[Belle]

> people group together to make it extremely difficult for them. <

Belle a minority of people-on a state, city , Queens and LIC level --the majority at all these levels wanted it. I agree Amazon could have done better. I think it's a very big loss for NY at all these levels. The billions loss make me real sad-that money could have come in handy for our subway and infrastructure. Regards, Len

Yes, I was referring to groups of powerful - what's the buzzword of the decade? - "stakeholders"!!!

The people won't forgive or forget. Take that to the bank.

[jserraglio]

The people won't forgive or forget. Take that to the bank.

My citibank deposit has been duly made. Meantime, newly minted-pol AOC among others smugly applaud their fait accompli — situation normal, all fluff'd up.

[Belle]

The people won't forgive or forget. Take that to the bank.

My citibank deposit has been duly made. Meantime, newly minted-pol AOC among others smugly applaud their fait accompli — situation normal, all fluff'd up.

What is AOC?

[Ricordanza]

The people won't forgive or forget. Take that to the bank.

My citibank deposit has been duly made. Meantime, newly minted-pol AOC among others smugly applaud their fait accompli — situation normal, all fluff'd up.

What is AOC?

The correct question is "Who is AOC?" The answer is newly-elected Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D - New York). She was a leading opponent of the Amazon project.

[Belle]

I do not know anything about this person!! But, as long as she has a job herself.....

[lennygoran]

I do not know anything about this person!! But, as long as she has a job herself.....

Belle she did her job today-nice set of questions for Michael Cohen! I watched the whole hearing-in general Cohen delivered the goods! Regards, Len