Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seattle City Council Members Visit New York To Warn About Amazon HQ2 (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the heads-up dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Two politicians from Amazon's hometown traveled across the country to New York to deliver a cautionary message about the company's expansion in the city. Members of the Seattle City Council, Lisa Herbold and Teresa Mosqueda, are urging elected officials in New York to pass legislation now that will address potential housing and transportation issues that will inevitably follow in the wake of Amazon's decision to build a major new campus in Queens. Both are speaking Monday at an event hosted by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which has been backing efforts to organize workers at an Amazon fulfillment center in Staten Island.

Amazon announced in November a major expansion in Long Island City, New York, and Crystal City, Virginia. In New York, Amazon would spend about $2.5 billion to create an 8.5 million square foot campus on the East River waterfront facing Manhattan from Long Island City. In return, the internet giant is set to receive almost $3 billion worth of state and city incentives. While Amazon could generate more than $27.5 billion in additional tax revenue for the city over 25 years, local politicians and community activists have already come out against the deal. Opponents fear the high salaries promised by Amazon and influx of as many as 40,000 employees eventually will push out residents in one of the city's fastest growing neighborhoods, and lead to even more congestion in the already overburdened subway system.

67 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. I don't live in NYC by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    but will they even notice 40 000 additional workers in such a big city?

    1. Re:I don't live in NYC by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isn't about warning NYC of the Evils of Amazon. This is about preventing Amazon from establishing a new HQ outside Seattle.

      Because if Amazon did that, they'd be in a position to tell Seattle bye-bye....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:I don't live in NYC by hawguy · · Score: 2

      Only when them come in in the morning and leave in the evening. None of them will be able to afford to live in Manhattan.

      That's probably a good thing, hopefully they'll live closer to LIC where the HQ will be... and which is not in Manhattan. No point in having 40,000 more people commute across the East River every day.

    3. Re:I don't live in NYC by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but will they even notice 40 000 additional workers in such a big city?

      There will not be 40,000 additional workers. The workers will just be displaced from other businesses ... or potential business that will now never be created.

      The constraint on business in NYC is availability of employees, and the constraint on new employees is housing cost, and the constraint on housing is the lack of new construction, and the constraint on new construction is the denial of most building permits.

      This is why subsidies on the DEMAND side of employment, while simultaneously constricting the SUPPLY side of employment, is completely idiotic.

      Voters need to be educated on basic economics so corrupt politicians that support these giveaways can be held to account.

    4. Re:I don't live in NYC by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Naturally, the world's population has a tendency to double every 40 years or so. These people need jobs

      Nearly all of that increase is happening in Africa, not New York.

    5. Re:I don't live in NYC by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Which underscores the necessity for Amazon to kick in for transportation.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:I don't live in NYC by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Cassandra said it best, "beware of amazons bearing gifts"

    7. Re:I don't live in NYC by nasch · · Score: 1

      Besides the point about where the population increase is happening, the rate of increase has also stopped increasing and is now or will soon be going down. Meaning the population is still increasing but at a slower and slower rate, and the population is not expected to double from where it is now.

      https://www.brookings.edu/blog...

    8. Re: I don't live in NYC by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Amazon and the homeless: a tale of two Long Island cities

      https://www.theguardian.com/ci...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    9. Re:I don't live in NYC by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      I agree on relaxing zoning restrictions, but unlike all of the west coast cities the NY metro area spans 3 states within very reasonable commute distance (4 if you include PA which is slightly unreasonable but done by many anyway). Anyone who becomes too strict is giving tax base away to neighbors. The city itself has relaxed a bit, but the suburbs are still clinging to 3 story height restrictions in their "downtown", which of course is the entire walkable area from the train station, which means people need to drive to the station from farther away, leading to giant parking lots that have waiting lists several years long.

    10. Re:I don't live in NYC by torkus · · Score: 1

      I DO live in NYC.

      40k people will be noticed in general. It's a non-trivial increase.
      40k people commuting to ONE SPECIFIC AREA will be massively noticed.

      The train system here, will ostensibly running 24/7/365, is aged and over-burdened. There isn't rush hour capacity on many lines as it stands and this many people in a small area is well beyond what could be added. Rent and similar things are already over the top and this will simply make it more ridiculous. I'm very glad I'm nowhere near LIC in my daily life/commute. It will be a shit show for sure.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  2. They should also warn them by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    about how bad Starbucks coffee is too.

    Rescind any tax credits, and put even higher amounts of rent control in place to minimize "issues"

    Or make Amazon dump 1 or 2 billion into fixing mass transit

    1. Re:They should also warn them by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      Things are relative. For most of the US, just having a mass transit system is something that makes NYC notable. Most major cities, at best, might have a few bus routes, if that. I know where I live, Austin, there have been one upgrade in mass transit in the pass 20 years.... a single light rail train track, which doesn't really go to places it is desparately needed (like the college campus.)

      Even a gondola system similar to Rio would be nicer and more practical than what is in use in this city as of now.

    2. Re:They should also warn them by bobstreo · · Score: 2

      Things are relative. For most of the US, just having a mass transit system is something that makes NYC notable. Most major cities, at best, might have a few bus routes, if that. I know where I live, Austin, there have been one upgrade in mass transit in the pass 20 years.... a single light rail train track, which doesn'teally go to places it is desparately needed (like the college campus.)

      Even a gondola system similar to Rio would be nicer and more practical than what is in use in this city as of now.

      Yeah, I know how bad it is. A week or two ago I rode a bus to the city near me for the first time in about 40 years. There are 2 early morning trips and 2 afternoon return trips. Good news, it was only $1 each way for a 25+ mile trip and there was plenty of space. The bad news was 1.5 (the other route was 2+) hours and up to 28 stops, which ended in a bus terminal about a mile from where I had an appointment.

      There isn't any bus service on weekends. No subways, local trains, light rail or monorails available.

    3. Re:They should also warn them by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      .... a single light rail train track, which doesn't really go to places it is desparately needed (like the college campus.)

      That is the problem with rail. It goes where it goes when it was built. It can't adapt. It is also far more expensive than more flexible options like buses.

      But discussing passenger rail with a liberal is like discussing the border wall with a conservative. Neither is able to think rationally.

    4. Re: They should also warn them by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      The British built train stations in every major and medium town.

      Yeah and the rail network is overpriced and unreliable.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re: They should also warn them by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yeah and the rail network is overpriced and unreliable.

      Yes, it is indeed overpriced and unreliable but it's still infinitely better than not having one. For a start, the road capacity does not and pretty much cannot exist to replace the rail network, and that's before parking is taken into account. And the trains run faster too for a lot of journeys, both long distance (due to the train speed) and urban (due to the heavy road traffic).

      I use the trains a lot. I can also drive (and preversely quite enjoy it as long as I'm not on a motorway, as long as I don't have to do it too often) and have many cars and vans I can use within walking distance. I generally choose t ouse the overpriced, unreliable train network in preference because a deeply imprefect system can still be worlds better than a different system.

      A large amount of the problem is that parliament is incompetent. Despite the evidence, they are convinced that repeatedly franchising it out will work better even though whenever a franchise collapses and the civil service takes over, reliablility goes up. But it's quasi-religious fanatacism on the part of our elected reprehensibles.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re: They should also warn them by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      A large amount of the problem is that parliament is incompetent. Despite the evidence, they are convinced that repeatedly franchising it out will work better even though whenever a franchise collapses and the civil service takes over, reliablility goes up. But it's quasi-religious fanatacism on the part of our elected reprehensibles.

      Oh definitely. It's not overpriced and unreliable by nature, that's all down to the way its being run currently, ie badly. If it works for you though then all the better.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    7. Re: They should also warn them by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Oh definitely. It's not overpriced and unreliable by nature, that's all down to the way its being run currently, ie badly. If it works for you though then all the better.

      It works for more than just me. Waterloo alone works for 100,000,000 people per year. Imagine trying to get that many cars through.

      It could work substantially better though.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:They should also warn them by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      That is the problem with rail. It goes where it goes when it was built.

      That is true if you're talking about just a single line or handful of lines. But if you build out a true grid or hub-and-spoke system, there is some inherent flexibility in that trains, while they still can only go where there are tracks, can at least be routed into different tracks when needed.

      --

      Nonaggression works!
  3. 25 Years? by Zorro · · Score: 2

    Amazon won't be around in 25 Years.

    1. Re:25 Years? by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure you where just trolling but we can't have you spreading bullshit can we. I fixed you comment for you after all it was Obama, a democrat, that doubled the national debit adding 10 trillion dollars to it. More than all other presidents before him combine.

      Not trolling. Sarcastic, but not trolling. The President of the United States controls neither spending nor taxation. That's Congress's job. What you're actually saying is that the (almost always Republican-controlled) Congress ran up more national debt under Obama than under all other presidents before him combined.

      As a rule, Democrats raise taxes to cover their spending, while Republicans borrow money to do so. There are exceptions, but they are rare. Thus, the national debt is mostly a Republican-caused problem. Tax cuts (the heart of the Republican platform) inherently increase the national debt. Anybody who says otherwise is kidding him/herself. It's like selling products at a loss, but making it up in volume.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re: 25 Years? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The President of the United States controls neither spending nor taxation.

      That's pretty damn funny.

      What's doubly funny is that you then go on to blame republicans for lowering taxes, and congratulate democrats for raising taxes ... convenitnely ignoring the fact that these ups and downs depend on which party has their president in office.

    3. Re:25 Years? by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

      It's awfully hard to foreclose on debt the issuer has decided to void.

    4. Re: 25 Years? by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      > ignoring the fact that these ups and downs depend on which party has their president in office.

      [citation?]

    5. Re: 25 Years? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The ups and downs also depend on which party holds Congress. It tends to be whichever party doesn't hold the White House, more often than not.

      The Constitution makes the division of power clear. Congress controls the purse strings, not the president. You can blame the president all you want for saying what the government's priorities should be, but ultimately it is Congress that is responsible for deciding how money is apportioned and how much tax is collected. The only thing the president can do is veto it, and only if Congress can't get a two-thirds majority to agree that it is a good idea.

      In other words, President Trump's temper tantrum over the border wall can go away tomorrow if Congress would grow some balls and work across the aisles to present a budget approved by a veto-proof majority.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:25 Years? by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      So what do the number say?

      Debt exploded after 1980, went down slightly under Clinton (and a Republican Congress). It went back up under Bush, and then again under Obama (who controlled both houses during his first term and the senate during his second term.)

      Lets just look at congress, In period since 1980 the democrat have controlled the house for 20 years. The Republicans cave controlled the house for 18 years. In the same period the Democrats have controlled the senate for 18 Years and the 22 years. It looks to me as though they are both equally culpable.

  4. NYC is the safest place in the US... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With NYC's common sense gun safety laws (possess a gun, sit 18-24 months at Rikers before you go to trial), the city is the safest place to be in the entire US. Why wouldn't people want to work there? It may cost a bit, but you can always find something on a subway route and walk a few blocks to where you need to be. It is no wonder why Amazon located there, as NYC is a city that matters.

    If you take away the Electoral College, candidates only need to campaign in NYC and LA. Everywhere else in the US is irrelevant.

    1. Re:NYC is the safest place in the US... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      That's not "common sense", that's fucking shameful. I'm fine with penalties for illegal gun possession. I'm NOT fine with jailing people for few years before trial, at the whim of some corrupt cop who may have planted a gun on them. Trials should be fair and speedy, as the Constitution guarantees.

      Then again, the trend in NYC is not prosecuting low-level "quality of life" BS crimes as much, so maybe the courts will be less clogged and time to trial will decrease. Bonus points for when (not if) marijuana becomes legal.

    2. Re:NYC is the safest place in the US... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The EC was put in place to allow states to disenfranchise their voters. Number of electoral votes was based on population (free people + 3/5 slaves) plus two votes, so a state wasn't "punished" for disenfranchising a majority of their voters. Whereas if votes in Federal election were based on actual votes, states that allowed Blacks and women (yep, NJ did even in the late 1700s) to vote would have a major advantage. The reasons for the EC were shameful and the institution is outdated.

    3. Re:NYC is the safest place in the US... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      states that allowed Blacks and women (yep, NJ did even in the late 1700s) to vote

      The first state to give women the vote was Wyoming, in 1890.

    4. Re:NYC is the safest place in the US... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Women had suffrage in NJ from 1776 to 1807.

    5. Re:NYC is the safest place in the US... by mschuyler · · Score: 2

      Actually the EC was put in place to protect the small states from being overwhelmed by the large states. The small states as in New England (non slave states) : Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, etc. and the large states (slave states) being Virginia, Georgia, etc. Today, without the EC, the US would be completely dominated by the two coasts with the states in the middle, i.e.: the vast majority of them, having no say whatsoever.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    6. Re:NYC is the safest place in the US... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Size =/= population.

      Free state population was on average higher than slave state population in 1780.

    7. Re:NYC is the safest place in the US... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Actually, I love Trump. It will be fun to buy a former Trumpkin's home at foreclosure auction after his policies run the US into the ground. Karma's a bitch, kids -- stock market is performing nicely... :D

    8. Re:NYC is the safest place in the US... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Women had suffrage in NJ from 1776 to 1807.

      Interesting. I didn't know that.

      According to several sources, it was limited to unmarried women who owned property. But that is still very enlightened for the times.

      So apparently 1807 was when things in New Jersey started going downhill.

    9. Re:NYC is the safest place in the US... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      I actually stand corrected. Freedmen + 0.6 * Slaves was on average slightly higher for slave states than free in 1780/90, but only slightly. About 2%, I think, not enough for the EC to make a difference either way.

    10. Re: NYC is the safest place in the US... by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      "after his policies run the US into the ground."

      Problem: outside a handful of richie-rich bubble cities, the US has _already_ been run into the ground. Declining lifespans, poverty, misery, broken families, systemic unemployment, crime, fascist policing, infrastructure collapse. 40 years of economic depression isn't pretty.

      The political Establishment's unwillingness even to acknowledge that there are big problems reminds me of a story I once heard about the old Soviet Union: During the widespread famines under Stalin, the Soviet statistical agency reported record harvests. Everyone slapped each other on the back with self-congratulations, while millions starved.

    11. Re: NYC is the safest place in the US... by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Next time please disable iTard quotes when posting a wallotext.

    12. Re:NYC is the safest place in the US... by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Today, without the EC, the US would be completely dominated by the two coasts with the states in the middle, i.e.: the vast majority of them, having no say whatsoever.

      Bullshit.
      Without the Electoral College, the people in the small states would have exactly the same say as those in the more populous states: one person one vote.
      With the EC, the voters in the less populous states have more say than the larger states.

    13. Re:NYC is the safest place in the US... by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Keep on spouting the Progressive line.

      The Electoral College was instituted to do exactly what it did last election. Prevent a a few high population states from dominating the national policy of the majority of other states in the federal association of sovereign states whihc is the United States.

      New York and California can pass what ever loonie tune local policies they want. They must at all cost be prevented from imposing those policies on the rest of us.

      The best policy the U.S. could follow is overturning the seventeenth and enforce the tenth amendment. As long as the fifteenth amendment is equally voraciously defended the overall result would be to the benefit of most.

      I'd throw in abolishing the sixteenth amendment, but that would take a constitutional amendment, because congress would never vote to cut their own purse strings.

      By the way the sixteenth and the seventeenth are the legacy of the last time Progressives got control of things. They the same party that segregated the Army, which had been desegregated since the end of the Civil War. You can thank Wilson for all that mess.

    14. Re:NYC is the safest place in the US... by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Except its not one person one vote at any level of the federal government. Note that Congress also does not operate on the one person one vote premise either. In neither the House nor the senate are does every person in the U.S. get the same representation. Instead the value of their vote is entirely dependent on where they live.

      Since as a U.S. citizen you are a citizen of your state first this is entirely appropriate. The U.S. is not a collection of counties, provinces or districts. It is a collection of sovereign states. That's the way the government was formed under the constitution and that is they it is administered.

  5. HA HA HA HA HA by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NYC metro area is over 13,000 square miles (including suburbs). And most people live in huge skyscrapers that increase livable square footage. They have a total population over 24 million people. GDP p[er capita is over 84,000.

    Seattle covers 142 sq miles. Most people live in buildings without elevators. The metro area covers 8,186 square miles, with most . Their total population is around 3.7 million.

    Yes, Amazon is a big deal, single-handedly raising the wealth in a city that AFTER the job increase is only 1/7 the population. The upper class in Seattle is dominated by Amazon.

    We will barely see them in NYC.
    The idea that Amazon's 25,000 jobs will be more than a drop in the bucket for the Big Apple is a freaking joke.

    It's like the captain of a 100 ft dinner cruise warning the captain of a cruise ship that those news passengers sure do eat a lot of food, and they better stock up on the steak.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:HA HA HA HA HA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're assuming these politicians are earnestly trying to warn NYC in good faith.

      But if that is so then why are these politicians giving speeches in front of the big unions instead of having tete-a-tete meetings with their NYC counterparts? If it were so then why make all this a big public deal instead of simply doing their jobs and getting things done?

      No, these scumbags are just butt hurt about all that tax money not going into their coffers. So what do they do? Kill two birds with one stroke of course:
      1. They rally up the unions so that they can be seen to "stand up for the little guy" (these politicians from Seattle are leftists no doubt, but even if they were conservatives they would still want to be seen in a good light in this way)
      2. They send a message to Amazon and others that they had better behave and pay their protection money or else Bad Things might just coincidentally happen to them.

    2. Re:HA HA HA HA HA by reanjr · · Score: 2

      Queens is 108 sq. miles. Total population of 2.36 million. Just because NYC is a sprawl doesn't insulate the smaller communities within from being impacted by such things. NYC is not Seattle, but problems of infrastructure are localized, so the size of a metropolis isn't relevant.

    3. Re:HA HA HA HA HA by Hodr · · Score: 1

      Small community indeed. Surprised they even have the basic infrastructure (running water / electricity) to sustain life, let alone attract major businesses.

  6. Warning from SCC? by beckatal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seattle city council is not in a position to give anyone advice about anything, outside of how to spread an opioid epidemic in their city.

    1. Re:Warning from SCC? by Alypius · · Score: 1

      "Don't do what we did: restrict high-density housing construction, conduct a decades-long war on cars, convert half the lanes to bike (or bus)-only lanes, paint rainbow crosswalks..."

  7. new york better be careful by shadowrat · · Score: 5, Funny

    if they don't handle this correctly, NY,NY could end up with one of the highest costs of living in the country.

    1. Re:new york better be careful by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      It's higher than most of the country, but significantly lower than parts of the Left Coast.

      --

      Nonaggression works!
    2. Re:new york better be careful by torkus · · Score: 1

      You mean lower than the specific towns populated by the early workers at IPO-win companies? Because otherwise NYC rent is NOT significantly lower than your example. Yes, out into brooklyn, queens, and SI you'll find significantly cheaper rent but you're cherry picking. Manhattan itself? Good luck...unless you score something rent controlled of course.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  8. LIC is already mostly gentrified by Koreantoast · · Score: 2

    Completely agree. We should also note that even before Amazon HQ2, Long Island City was far down the path of gentrification with rapidly rising white collar offices and luxury apartments. HQ2 merely cements a trend that has long been in progress and gives opponents of gentrification a clear, single target they can focus their wrath on in a last ditch attempt to slow the trend.

  9. Please Sabotage Your New Company by Ken+McE · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "This isn’t about being anti-growth or anti-corporation. It’s about corporate accountability and shared responsibility," Mosqueda said in an interview with Bloomberg ahead of the event. "These companies do well because of our workforce and infrastructure, and they’ll continue to do well if they invest in that infrastructure."

    So a town that Amazon is fleeing, excuse me, "avoiding" is telling their competition that the best way to invite new businesses is to wrap them in a cozy web of yet more new rules, policies, procedures, laws and regulations? Do they ever wonder why Amazon might be looking for new places to grow?

    Mosqueda said New York must act now with new taxes to generate revenue that will be needed for affordable housing. She also cautioned against letting... gestures pass as being adequate to address complex and costly problems of housing and transportation.

    So a city of less than one million, that is doing a notoriously bad job of managing their social problems, is busy telling a city of over eight million how to use socialism to manage the problem of having too many jobs?

  10. Overburdened subway system? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a job for Elon and the Boring Company!

    1. Re:Overburdened subway system? by Hodr · · Score: 1

      Never heard of 'em.

  11. Traveled to New York to do what? by GregMmm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok. I live in Washington and I've watched the city of Seattle crap on itself (no really) over the years till they have the problems they've created. But what the heck is two CITY council members flying across the country on the cities dime doing in New York? YOU'RE A CITY COUNCIL MEMEBER! THAT'S IT! Try working on your own disaster of a city you've created (not Amazon or Microsoft or anyone else) and here is a clue: USE THE PHONE TO GIVE NEW YORK YOUR OPINION! Save the tax payer money instead of taking a New York vacation.

    Maybe there actually scared because Seattle is only a couple pony town (Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon) and if they push Amazon will be out all that tax money people spend...... Naw, they're not that smart.

    New York, feel free and absorb Amazon HQ2 and start sucking jobs from Seattle. It won't be hard when the Seattle city council thinks you're the causes of all the problems in Seattle. Wait, isn't the city council supposed to keep the city working right? Right.

    1. Re: Traveled to New York to do what? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

      Boeing already left. They've been HQ'ed in Chicago for years.

    2. Re: Traveled to New York to do what? by Alypius · · Score: 1

      And built a plant in South Carolina because they were tired of the strikes every five years.

  12. If having Amazon in your city is so bad... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't they be encouraging New York in hopes of as many Amazon jobs as possible getting transferred there instead of scaring the city off and keeping more of them in Seattle?

    1. Re:If having Amazon in your city is so bad... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2

      Because right now, Seattle seems more like an abusive boyfriend stalking his ex and threatening anyone they start dating in hopes they'll have to come crawling back.

  13. If it's that bad ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... why aren't the Seattle council members trying to unload the whole thing on NYC?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:If it's that bad ... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      They've been trying. Look at laws they keep passing.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  14. shenanigans! by BeCre8iv · · Score: 1

    $3b in tax breaks to incentivise a $2.5b campus?

    Draw your own conclusions.

    --
    This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
  15. Re:The Truth by Alypius · · Score: 1

    Yup. Rather than build a high-rise or at least an apartment complex, they took a plot of land and built...tiny houses.

  16. Re:Poor Seattle by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Leftists and socialists are the Donald Trump of politics.

    Isn't Donald Trump the Donald Trump of politics?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  17. 40,000 is in the noise by stomv · · Score: 1

    Your comment is written like someone who doesn't understand just how big NYC and the metro area really is.

    New York City has gained an average of 64,000 people per year from 2010 -- 2017.

    Furthermore, NYC has the best commuter rail access in the country and 20,000,000 people live in the NYC metro area. 0.2% of that population is Amazon's 40k. I'm not arguing against loosening zoning restrictions, but the idea that you can't find room for another 40,000 people in 13,000 square miles is pretty absurd.

    --
    Support a few technologists in Washington.
  18. all corporate spending, no Infrastructure spending by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

    > in the already overburdened subway system.

    Maybe they should build more roads, or expand their subway system, or something...