Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Pulls Out of Planned New York City Campus (nytimes.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

As expected, Amazon said on Thursday that it was canceling plans to build a corporate campus in New York City [The link may be paywalled; alternative source]. From a report: The company had planned to build a sprawling complex in Long Island City, Queens, in exchange for nearly $3 billion in state and city incentives. But the deal had run into fierce opposition from local lawmakers who criticized providing subsidies to one of the world's richest companies. Amazon said the deal would have created more than 25,000 jobs. Amazon's NYC educational investments will continue.
Amazon's statement: "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, where we have gotten to know so many optimistic, forward-leaning community leaders, small business owners, and residents. There are currently over 5,000 Amazon employees in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Staten Island, and we plan to continue growing these teams."

13 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. Good government management by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good!!! The governments should not provide subsidies. There should be a law against that.

    1. Re:Good government management by atrex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, NYC could take that $3 Billion dollars and hire 25,000 workers with $50K annual salaries for two years to rebuild and modernize the city's subway system which will provide much greater and longer term economic benefit to the city than an Amazon office building.

    2. Re:Good government management by sdinfoserv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Try and live in NYC on $50K.

    3. Re:Good government management by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Problem is it's not $3bn in cash they have handing over, it's $3bn in tax they are not going to collect.

      You can't pay people with tax you would have collected if Amazon had come to town.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Good government management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They were never spending $3B. They were refunding $3B worth of the taxes Amazon would have paid. Too many stupid people commenting on something they don't understand.

    5. Re: Good government management by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's an important distinction between being paid, and incentives that mean you pay less.

      There is indeed. But both are wrong. There should be equality before the law, even for businesses. One business should not be taxed to fund tax breaks for another "more worthy" business.

      In their rush to be virtuous and socialist,

      Only some deal opponents were socialists like AOC, who objected to the handouts to a rich company, although she doesn't object to handouts in principle. But many more objectors are free market capitalists, who don't think the government should be "picking winners". It was an alliance of left and right, standing together to oppose corporate welfare.

      This is not something to celebrate.

      Yes it is. Hopefully other locales will learn a lesson from this, and these corrupt handouts can stop.

    6. Re:Good government management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Keep in mind most of those amazon jobs would have been for a LOT LESS than $50k. They too would not have been able to live in nyc.

  2. Place it where they need it by Only+Time+Will+Tell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've always said if Amazon wants to be really beneficial and transformational, place their HQ2 in a rust-belt city. NYC is fine, they are millions of jobs and a high cost of living. Places like Cleveland, Indianapolis, Pittsburg, etc. need the jobs and would be very supportive to Amazon.

    1. Re:Place it where they need it by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've always said if Amazon wants to be really beneficial and transformational, place their HQ2 in a rust-belt city.

      Bezos doesn't own a home in a rust-belt city. Unlike Washington, DC or NYC.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  3. Re:good by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NYC will do just fine. It absolutely never needed Amazon, and Amazon would have caused problems for it (it's expensive enough to live there as it is due to the national shortage of decent urban space), not solved anything.

    As far as the notion that it was right for a massive business to punish a city because its government didn't want to subsidize it, I'm truly disgusted that anyone would suggest such a thing. I'd like to see less subsidies to corporate consumers in general (Amazon is a corporate consumer, a user, not provider, of infrastructure, for example), and for cities across the country to stop competing with one another on who can flush their local economies down the toilet as quickly as possible just to attract a large employer who'll cost local taxpayers more than they bring in.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  4. Re:There was NO GIVEAWAY of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Granting the tax break is far, far more expensive.

    If the amazon deal is so lucrative, why don't we just give that tax break to every single company that operates in the city? The simple answer is because amazon, and any other company present, costs the city money. Infrastructure has to be maintained, city services have to be provided, etc. All that shit costs money.

    If the taxes they collect with the deal aren't enough to cover the expenses of Amazon, then you're just creating a ponzi scheme, with other people stuck picking up the tab.

  5. Re:I bet it's also the new tax law effect by blahbooboo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thank god, it should have never existed. It just means those in states with no or low income tax are subsidizing those that live in places like NYC or CA. Now maybe those people will realize how much all their taxed out the ass govt programs cost.

    Too simplistic thinking on your part. The high tax states contribute far more to the federal tax budget that the states with no or low state income taxes. For example, NY sends $38 billion more to the federal government than it gets back.

  6. There were no "conservatives" involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those subsidies were offered up by Democrats Andrew Cuomo and Bill De Blasio.

    Jeff Bezos gives money to Democratic candidates, not Republicans.

    Where are the "conservatives" in the story?