Edward Glaeser's research on the economic and social benefits from density, summarized in Triumph of the City [1] and referenced in this guy's videos [2][3], is worth reviewing. Long story short, agglomeration breeds efficiencies which lead to further agglomeration. New York can uniquely offer things other cities can't because of its density. A few thousand people moving to Newark (assuming they're willing to move to Newark) won't bring those benefits there.
Over centuries, despite population growth and political upheavals, the relative size of cities in almost every geographic region is remarkably stable. That hints at deeper mechanisms which can't be unseated by something as small as Amazon moving.
Better policy: give people in Newark the support they need to move to wherever they like, whether that still be in Newark or somewhere else.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/books/review/Silver-t.htm...
I used a bit of shorthand, above, in saying "the relative size of cities in almost every geographic region is remarkably stable." Let me expand on "geographic region," because it reveals the tension that keeps the world from collapsing into Chongqing [1].
The size of a "geographic region" for this purpose is best defined as the distance the average economically-productive person can commute in a day. Back when people walked, towns tended to be about 10 miles apart. As transport technology improved, Manhattan ate its neighboring boroughs. It is now consuming Northern New Jersey and Connecticut. Barring a quantum leap in transportation tech, Charlotte is safe.
(On the seeds for dispersion: Certain economic activities, like mining and agriculture, occur somewhat independently of population centers. You go where the mineral veins and fertile land are. The fruits of those activities navigate the transportation geography, navigable waterways, flat areas across which rail lines can network and natural harbors, their wealth concentrating at the hubs. Thus, a fundamental industrial tension between distributed economic activity and the concentrating effects of transportation emerges.
In the modern world, those industrial distribution factors remain. Added to them are activities that are cheaper away from population centers, e.g. large-scale manufacturing and nuclear-power generation. Nevertheless, technology so far appears to be increasing the concentrating factor faster than the dispersion term by making (a) the distributed economic activities less labor-intensive and (b) increasing profits to those organizing our social structures-whether in finance, logistics or government–who benefit from the chance encounters proximity promotes.)
> But North Carolina was among the first states to allow banks to operate multiple branches within a state's borders.
https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/bank_notes/2012/0...
From what I've seen, the reaction to this news on /r/Dallas is very positive. We don't want Amazon here.
(Though I figured it was going to be NoVa from the start. I was just terrified I'd be wrong.)
Let’s get the NJ Path to the airport (3 miles) and the 7 Subway to NJ then Newark, Jersey City become boroughs of NYC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_Subway_Extension
Currently, it looks like an hour from Newark Penn to Long Island City. Path to 1,2,3 Lines...
I do hope NYC deals with its growing pains -- I finally left last year, in part because of rising costs and aggravation.
Adding a subway line to NYC subway is like herding a multiple feral cat colonies.
My vote was for Newark, personally. Plenty of office space; access to NJIT, Rutgers, and Princeton; and good public transit that connects directly into NYC. Bezos and co. could have done some real good, but instead they will just be contributing to New York's biggest gripes (unsustainable subways, housing shortages, and an aggregation of labor into a few metropolitan areas).