Prominent New Yorkers Are Trying To Get Amazon To Bring Back HQ2 (cnet.com)

The New York Times reported Thursday that an open letter will be published in the Times on Friday that asks Amazon to reconsider its decision to walk away from its plan to build a 25,000-employee campus in Long Island City, Queens. The company pulled the plug on the project, dubbed HQ2, following vocal and persistent opposition to the plan after it was announced three months ago. CNET reports: The letter was signed by the CEOs of Mastercard, Warby Parker, Goldman Sachs, Tishman Speyer and Jetblue, among others. The presidents of the Building & Construction Trades Council of Greater New York and state AFL-CIO, which were expecting thousands of construction jobs to come from the project, also signed, as did U.S. Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Carolyn Maloney. "We know the public debate that followed the announcement of the Long Island City project was rough and not very welcoming," the letter stated. "Opinions are strong in New York -- sometimes strident. We consider it part of the New York charm! But when we commit to a project as important as this, we figure out how to get it done in a way that works for everyone."

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has also had several conversations with Amazon, including CEO Jeff Bezos, about bringing back the project, the Times said. The letter and Cuomo's behind-the-scenes efforts are part of the latest fallout since Amazon abandoned HQ2 in New York. The opposition has celebrated the exit as a victory for grassroots campaigns and a stand against lavish government incentives for new development plans. Amazon was slated to get about $3 billion in tax breaks for building the project. Supporters, who weren't as vocal during the run-up to Amazon leaving, expressed shock and consternation about Amazon's decision and worried that New York would appear unfriendly to new businesses. While the business community was broadly seen as in favor of the project, the letter shows how both the camps supporting and opposing HQ2 included unions and Democratic U.S. congress members.

Comments

money-mouth

[PopeRatzo]

Is there any evidence that any of these big subsidy deals to bring companies, sport franchises, etc have ever worked out to the benefit of the population of the municipality?

Re:money-mouth

[ShanghaiBill]

Is there any evidence that any of these big subsidy deals to bring companies, sport franchises, etc have ever worked out to the benefit of the population of the municipality?

It is hard to say because each scheme is different, and you can't roll the experiment forward and then roll it back and try it again without the subsidy. Reality only has one timeline.

But we can say that on average they are a net loss. Amazon was going to expand no matter what. Without the subsidy they would have chosen the location based on the best business efficiency. So all the subsidy did was pay to pull the potential HQ from one city to another.

These subsidies are a Prisoner's Dilemma. Each city feels compelled to offer subsidies because the other cities are doing the same. But they would be collectively better off if none of them did so.

Re:money-mouth

[Luckyo]

Here in Finland I can cite quite a few off the top of my head. For example, pretty much all of the large nickel etc smelters we have in small regions in Lapland. They're literally the main reason some small townships exist any more.

Same goes for things like huge cellulose and carton factories also typically located in a small township willing to give a lot more of subsidies and tax breaks than large city. And in return, the company tends to pay a huge share of local tax income, as well as employ people. One needs not look beyond what happens to towns that have such a factory go broke and/or leave to understand the impact and importance of inviting and keeping industry.

Re:money-mouth

[PopeRatzo]

Here in Finland...

Oh boy.

pretty much all of the large nickel etc smelters we have in small regions in Lapland. They're literally the main reason some small townships exist any more.

Yeah see, the difference is that New York is going to exist whether or not Amazon goes there. Queens, NYC is not exactly Lapland.

Also, subsidies for nickel smelters in Lapland are part of a sensible industrial/economic policy that includes free (or nearly free) education, universal health care, etc etc. Finland is actually a civilized place and would be a wonderful place to live if it wasn't dark for six months of the year.

The situation is very different in the US. Every time...EVERY TIME...a company promises 10,000 high-paying jobs for an area if they just let them not pay taxes, it really turns out to be 100 high-paying jobs and 9,900 shit jobs and 8000 of those get laid off within three years. The entire thing is nothing but a late-stage capitalist boondoggle.

And it's not even that the companies coming into US municipalities are allowed to not pay a certain amount of taxes. It's much worse than that. The companies still collect the state taxes from their employees, but then don't have to pass the money onto the state. They literally are allowed to keep the state taxes they withheld from their employees' paychecks as tax-free income. Pure profit. On the backs of the employees. And guess what? Now somebody else has to cover the shortfall.

Re:money-mouth

[Luckyo]

That is the communist model of "everyone should have equal outcomes regardless of merit". It simply doesn't work in real life because no two individuals are the same. And businesses ultimately are made out of individuals.

For example, here in Finland the solution to this problem is to have high progressive income taxes, low business taxes, and then have state government, local government, workers' union and employers' union all interlinked in complex network of negotiations over everything from salaries and worker conditions in each field to various tax levels, tax breaks and other incentives. It works specifically because it can adjust when business is in trouble and lower its burdens to the society to keep it afloat over tough times so it can flourish a few years later as cyclical nature of market economy goes through its ups and downs.

Your "only action" is the action where all businesses leave, because all they will see is the unflinching communist apparatchik unwilling to address any merits of each case and instead simply repeating the mantra of "all are equal regardless of merits, and if you don't like it, fuck off". So any sane individual would indeed fuck right off and leave the apparatchik live the life of inescapable poverty.

Re:NYC Nightmare.

[Luckyo]

No, it's New York. The city where mafia doesn't really do the standard violence racketeering, but the regulations racketeering. Not "it would be a shame if something happened to your business" but "it would be a shame if city [x] inspector was to visit you and be really thorough".

That part of New York is so legendary among people doing business, that it's known even far abroad.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

> They are going to work for other companies that will pay the full $30B in taxes.

Citation please, those companies don't work. There's a simpler explanation for "record low unemployment" ... you can't afford to stay in that socialist shithole without a job.