It is always vocal minoirities who do things, even with very popular topics.

Animal cruelty? There is only a vocal minority who takes a public stance, despite this beeing a very clear cut issue in terms of public opinion. Migration is the other way round: most people don't give a fuck, but have a loud vocal base that will even hurt themselves to make a point and you will be heard.

Animal cruelty isn't a great analogy.

It's not a vocal minority, it's a vocal subset of the majority.

A vocal minority is when the opponents of a popular viewpoint are louder than its proponents.

Always relevant:

The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

Previous discussion on HN [0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16454645

anti-nimby housing activism is a better analogy. The case against more housing construction is very weak at a objective and public policy level, but the only opposition is arguably a minority of people because selling it to the public is difficult. Urban charter schools are another one.

I see the same thing with the Amazon HQ. It's easy for Amazon to spin it in a positive PR direction by talking about jobs and increased revenue, but the policy case for giving in to Amazon's demand is actually weak.

https://hbr.org/2018/07/landing-amazon-hq2-isnt-the-right-wa...

Animal cruelty is a great analogy because the people who oppose it, which are the minority, are more vocal than those who are proponents of it, which make up the majority.

Do you really think only a minority oppose animal cruelty? How many people are proponents of animal cruelty? Neither of us have data to back it up but if you polled people I think the majority would be against animal cruelty, they just wouldn't spend their time opposing it, that's the difference.

Majority of people (me included) continue to buy meat and other animal products, thus promoting animal cruelty.

I do too, but animal cruelty still bothers me and I try to buy products where I believe that the cruelty has been minimized. Animal cruelty is a spectrum and a lot of people care where on the spectrum they lie.

Except when it's the animals that have been killed for their food, then suddenly the conditions those animals are in are not concerning enough to take action. At the moment it's the minority taking any sort of effective change. Boycotts are too much effort for people these days.

Who are proponents of animal cruelty besides dog/cock fighting fans/operators? I doubt that these groups form a majority.

If they know how most food animals are treated, which seems likely, then most people who eat meat are OK with severe, sometimes grotesque cruelty. It goes beyond opinion: they put their money down for it.

People make compromises with their social circumstances.

They're not "ok" with the level of cruelty but in a pervasive environment of limited culinary and social choices, they're okay with living with that knowledge.

Personally, I think you get further raising better people than trying to impose a moral standard in a population that (for the most part) eats diets that hamper cognition and volition ala high sugar and ultra processed crap. Intermittent fasting and a decent diet would do much more for the quality of moral calculation of people than telling them that their entire culture is morally bad. Because we're humans who utilize different strata of values, not mere moral robots.

To paraphrase Nietzsche, the moralists and priesthoods of the world devalue the very small things which give arise to moral judgment: Diet, climate, and habit.

from merriam Webster online [0]

> Definition of proponent: one who argues in favor of something

Even if people are enabling something doesn't mean that they are proponents. Let's stop with the newspeak and use the correct words for things please.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proponent

Knowing how many food animals are treated and having the option to choose differently are two different things.

Not everyone has the money to choose differently.

At times there is no choice. This is especially true if you are a 15 year old. At 15, you basically eat what your parents eat. You can't generally afford food. You can't always just get a job if your parents won't provide education and/or if your school decides your grades aren't up to working. Oh, and you can't work all that often due to child labor laws.

At times, the actual choice is a bad one. Take eggs, for example. When I have the choice, I choose eggs from hens with larger cages. I realize these are hardly large, but they are better than the alternative. I've only lived one place that I could buy eggs directly from the source (during summer time) - but I'm literally an ocean plus some away from that now.

People honestly need a little bit of animal proteins lest they must take supplements. (Truth: I take vitamin D, as I can't make enough at my northerly location). I'm also mostly vegetarian. I eat fish once a week and I eat eggs and cheese.

I can only speak from my personal experience from living in Perú and the US. So I'd say that the majority of Peruvians and Americans support animal cruelty with the decisions that they make every week at the grocery store.

Being a financial supporter does not make one a proponent. There is nobody out there that I know of (maybe lobbyists) who actively argue that there should be more animal cruelty.

"Vocal" is maybe not the most accurate word for this. The reason why things don't happen despite polls showing majority support for them happening (or vice versa), is because the polls don't show how much people care one way or the other. People who care more will also do more - being vocal is one of the things, but another one is e.g. fundraising for campaigns and voting in primaries.

An unrelated example: polls show large supermajorities in favor of many gun control proposals (universal background checks poll at ~90%, for example). But most people who say that they want it, don't consider the opposite stance on that a deal-breaker for their vote - there are many other issues that are more important to them. On the other hand, the 10% that is opposed, is very firmly opposed, and that issue is close to the top for many of them, to the point of single issue voting. And when those people all turn up in the Republican primaries and vote as a bloc, those votes are enough to prevent candidates that displease that crowd from even getting to the general. And so you have all those party line votes, with every single Republican voting against, even though the majority of their constituents - and even the majority of their supporters - would prefer them to vote differently.

Or see Taleb's thoughts on Minority Rule: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

What's the debate about animal cruelty?

Most people are quite happy to keeping buying cheap factory-farmed meat and dairy, despite vague awareness of the generally horrific conditions of the animals (and humans) producing it.

It is rarely labeled that way so the history of the animal doesn't come into play when purchasing.

When people think animal cruelity they think beating your family dog vs the state of factory farming or organic farming.

To continue this thread I suppose...

I've been thinking a lot about trying to purchase pasture raised and sustainable meat products lately and part of that has been buying pasture raised eggs.

My last incredibly priced carton actually included a little slip inside with pictures of the hens in their pasture, and I believe even an offer to visit their farm.

Was really nice to go the other way. Instead of thinking about or ignoring the cruelty, to think about these happy hens.

But damn is it expensive!

Oh, so “animal cruelty” is Newspeak for not being vegan.

As someone who grew up on a farm: there are entirely reasonable ways to define standards of livestock welfare that don't require veganism.

This is true, but the bulk of this hyperbolic criticism comes from vegans, and they're going to use terms like "animal cruelty" no matter what livestock welfare standards you set.

Do you dispute that current lifestock welfare standards in the meat/dairy/egg/etc. industries permit what most would agree is animal cruelty if the same things were done to, say, the family dog?

Yes, I dispute that, if we are talking about Australia. As a farmer (both meat and crop), the better you look after your stock, the more you make from them. There is no incentive for cruelty and it will cost you money. Admittedly, we don't have feedlots on the same scale as the US and the majority of beasts go pasture to plate fairly quickly.

Not all farm animals in Australia are free range cows. For example, cage eggs and sow stalls are still legal.

My point is, it would have been clearer and more honest to use the term “factory farming” if you’re talking about factory farming. I don’t know or care much about factory farming itself.

That's a bit disingenuous, isn't it? This particular thread of comments started when you reacted to criticism of "cheap factory-farmed meat".

Because that's when it became clear that's what was meant by "animal cruelty" in the first place, at least by the person I was responding to.

I'm pretty unconvinced. I don't see any reason to believe your line of reasoning; that the original poster is a hyperbolic vegan. Do you have anything beyond your assertion?

Who else would derail comments on an article about Amazon cancelling their NYC expansion with tangential and disingenuous discussions about factory farms?

Also, the way different accounts seem to seamlessly continue a deep and tangential discussion thread is also kind of suspicious. Almost like it’s one person who keeps switching alt accounts.

This off-topic debate started because of the assertion that it's the vocal minority that have rejected Amazon. The discussion on industrial animal cruelty for cheap produce is an example of how the wants of the majority doesn't always produce the best outcome for the well-being of other people, creatures, and the environment.

Regardless of peoples eating lifestyles it's undeniable that factory farms which produce most of the economically accessible meat are little concerned about animal welfare or the environment. The public on this matter also are least concerned about these matters related to the meat they buy off supermarket shelves, only when it's a video of a 'cute' animal being abused. It is only the minority of people in this instance that take a principled stance, if the silent majority did care we wouldn't be producing so much factory farmed meat after years of publicizing the abuse in the media.

I'm not a vegan but the way you characterize anyone who has a 'minority view' as some radical that only wants to cause problems is the attitude that allows corporations to operate it's abuse of worker standards and public funding to no one else's gain but themselves.

> The discussion on industrial animal cruelty for cheap produce is an example of how the wants of the majority doesn't always produce the best outcome for the well-being of other people, creatures, and the environment.

The discussion would have been clearer if the unambiguous term "factory farming" was used instead. The use of these ambiguous and disingenuous tactics of argumentation is reminiscent of PETA in particular. If you don't want to be characterized as a nutjob, don't act like one. That's my point.

Quote the original poster: "Most people are quite happy to keeping buying cheap factory-farmed meat and dairy" (emphasis added by me).

That was two levels downthread of the otherwise disingenuous and unexplained use of the term “animal cruelty” here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19165463

Either someone shared with you an out-of-context link to this subthread for brigading purposes or you’re being totally disingenuous right now.

This is the second time you've claimed that this thread is some sort of conspiracy.

For myself (and maybe the others), your responses jumped one step beyond reasonable. Because someone used animal cruelty to describe factory farming, that poster is a hyperbolic vegan? I think the fact that you were being hyperbolic incited a few extra replies due to the... irony?

Well, either it's a sockpuppet conspiracy (go ahead, check out my post history), or multiple people agree that your hyperbolic snark was not constructive. I'll freely admit we've come a pretty long from Amazon's HQ though!

I like how using the term “animal cruelty” isn’t hyperbolic, but using the term “vegan” is.

I mean, Veganism is the easiest way of avoiding animal cruelty.

Unless you have a cat and refuse to feed it meat. That’s cruel to the cat, in my opinion.

Edit: Cats are obligate carnivores and can't physically remain healthy without eating meat.

Then there's the flip side with creeps like me. I'm a plant sadist who feeds tofu to my Venus flytrap.

Loud minority of Vegans vs everyone else.

> Migration is the other way round

Migration meaning what? Immigration within the US? That's been a hot button topic since the first Bush nationally, and has been the source of propositions in California since the my first memories of the early 80s. Interestingly, the more the internet was adopted, the more high profile the immigration debate became, nationally. Clinton talked quite a bit (even after his presidency), Bush Jr ignored it, and so on.

Almost everything in your comment is factually wrong.

Reagan passed landmark immigration liberalization in 1986.

Clinton was an immigration hawk.

https://hackinglawpractice.com/blog/20-year-law-signed-conti...

GWB fought hard against his own party for immigration reform and liberalization.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/senate-ki...

> Almost everything in your comment is factually wrong

That is, in itself, incorrect.

> Reagan passed landmark immigration liberalization in 1986

Yes, bringing it to the forefront, but without a way to communicate effectively, the party in power passed landmark legislation without a national consensus. Most people were unaware, until it passed and had no recourse after.

> Clinton was an immigration hawk.

I'm not sure what you believe, but that's incorrect, imo. He gave strong lip service in "securing borders" but was instrumental in toothless legislation that paved the way for the current passive acceptance alongside the tripling (ish) of the illegal immigration. The insistence that legal immigration continued to outpace illegal immigration year-over-year before and after his presidency is classic Clinton doublespeak meant to push an agenda by interpretation, which he maintained after his presidency. See his last John Stewart Daily Show appearance. Winners write the stories, so this will likely just be forgotten by the future.

> Migration is the other way round: most people don't give a fuck, but have a loud vocal base that will even hurt themselves to make a point and you will be heard.

GWB's reforms were not well supported, so the initial point I made stands, regardless of what was reported. The idea that GWB was doing anything but appealing to a wider base. What he did, was speed up deportations (ending catch and release) and stopped talking about it after his election. So you can interpret that how you will, but it certainly wasn't "fighting hard".

Most New Yorkers don't live in LIC and won't be directly impacted. If you asked me about a proposal in a borough I never go to I'd probably say "yeah sure no problem"!

There are a vanishingly small number of long time LIC residents. Up until ten years ago it was mostly industrial, one commercial tower, and a smattering of low rise residential.

So who makes up this supposed groundswell of local opposition? People that moved in to one of those shiny new towers last week and are already looking to slam the door behind themselves?

That's silly. Most of the people working there weren't going to live in LIC. It's not like that was going to be a requirement to work at the Amazon campus.

Besides this sniffs of the "yea build shelters everywhere but my block" attitude.

56% is not a resounding endorsement, though, especially for such a big-ticket giveaway that the city absolutely does not need.

Big ticket? Of the abatements, only $500M (the portion related to construction) wasn't available to any business that met the state's requirements. Giveaway? These are tax incentives that are part of the state's tax code -- taking less in taxes to incentivize a particular action is not the same as giving away money that could be spent elsewhere (to illustrate why it isn't the same, that money is not currently available to be spent elsewhere). NYC won HQ2 originally in spite of not giving nearly as much as other jurisdictions were willing to. The polling is much higher than 56% when the question is asked generally, and the polling is highest in Queens which stood to gain the most. The city may or may not "need" 25,000 new jobs but LIC certainly "wanted" those jobs. The proposal was most popular among Black and Hispanic Queens residents and least popular among White Manhattan residents -- suggesting that those who stood to benefit from local economic activity were most excited.

Of all the crummy talking points defending Amazon in this situation, the most odious is the idea that regular working New Yorkers lost an opportunity to get good jobs and upgrade their livelihoods. Amazon has an established record of being terrible to its workforce, and any fool knows that the workers in Amazon HQ2 aren’t going to be regular joes in Queens. At best, ordinary New Yorkers had a shot at serving HQ2 executives their coffee or delivering their food. Even then, their rents would be spiking due to gentrification and their businesses would be threatened by Amazon’s unique flair for vertical integration. And don’t even start with the tax-positive arguments. Amazon doesn’t pay taxes. Have a look at their federal returns.

LIC and the rest of the broader NYC region has been undergoing gentrification for many years now, and Amazon probably would not have had much impact on that. Amazon's vertical integration will impact local businesses regardless of where they place their offices. The reason New Yorkers are not going to suffer is that there are tons of jobs in NYC and numerous big corporate offices. This is probably one of the most overblown issues in NYC politics that I can remember.

True about LIC already undergoing gentrification. But it’s still kind of affordable, at least to young white collar workers who are priced out of Manhattan or the expensive parts of Brooklyn. Amazon execs are paid big bucks. My friends who work there left behind multi-million dollar salaries without missing a beat. Having that kind of money fall into a developing area would ensure that even the baby bankers and lawyers were sent packing to the Bronx or Newark or wherever.

I’d be pretty surprised if a large percentage of those 25,000 jobs were going to have million dollar salaries. And who is to say that the handful that might have income that high would live in LIC, as opposed to a neighboring area.

The "regular joe in Queens" may not get the SWE job in Amazon, but they most certainly can understand that with 25,000 well paid workers comes lots of other economic activity. Do you think that retail owners, restaurant owners, construction workers, etc. etc. etc. are too stupid to understand that they're not going to get hired as a UX designer? Maybe the people who run coffee and catering businesses would LOVE to serve execs their food, because they like new customers? I also find it remarkeble that your argument seems to be: "amazon treats their workers poorly, but also they're too well paid and they'll gentrify the place, but also regular Queens residents won't get the jobs anyway" -- so they're going to gentrify the area with their terrible jobs? Why would the Queens workers want to work there if it's so terrible?

Amazon treats even highly-paid workers poorly. It’s a grinder from the warehouse to the boardroom. As for local businesses, do you think Amazon will hire some local catering company? They own Whole Foods. Go visit the campus in Seattle. Amazon has its own bars, restaurants, stores, etc. Their entire business model is undercutting and assimilating small business owners on terms that only get worse.

Those 25000 workers would have paid income taxes and property taxes.

And they still will, with different employers that hopefully have a better reputation for the treatment of their employees (and hopefully pay a fair tax contribution).

> NYC won HQ2 originally in spite of not giving nearly as much as other jurisdictions were willing to.

Because the entire "competition" was a sham. Amazon was never going to park the future of the company into a place lacking talent.

> The proposal was most popular among Black and Hispanic Queens residents and least popular among White Manhattan residents

That's a good point, but the counter is that the Black and Hispanic residents are the ones who would end up pushed out by Amazon's white and asian workers.

So it's false consciousness, then? You know what's best for them?

NYC is very political.

Surprised AMZN had such a thin skin.

And after all this, they are going to move into vacant office buildings in DC near the airport, and in Nashville.

It's not a thin skin so much as it is submitting on an ongoing narrative. They probably hoped they could do this and end up with the tax breaks, the NYC offices they want, more favorable conditions, and the public would laud them for it.

Instead they got a pretty massive backlash that adds more fuel to the already burning story about Amazon's mistreatment of workers, Amazon's 0% tax rate, Amazon lobbying defeating taxes in Seattle, etc... They have a PR problem already. They are bringing a whole lot of negative attention to themselves. They will have it worse in the future when they try to do the same sort of thing in Washington state.

They folded because staying in wasn't worth it.

For some reason, it doesnt surprise me that Amazon is not very committed to hiring the kind of people that want to live in New York. While they're probably not enjoying their PR, I can't believe this is their biggest lost.

"The kind of people that want to live in New York" includes Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon employees (Amazon has about 5000 employees in NYC already). There is also the financial sector with all those quants and risk managers and whatnot. I am pretty sure Amazon wants to hire people like that but convincing them to move to Nashville won't be easy.

I can't find any numbers, but for comparison, do you know how many Walmart employees live in New York?

Technically, several hundred. I say "technically" because they actually work for wholly-owned subsidiaries.

Interesting choice for comparison given that Walmart is banned from NYC limits.

How about New Yorkers who lived in Queens?

I live in LIC and I've not met anyone who supported it, especially the $3BN of incentives.

No wonder Gianaris, who represents our district in the NY Senate, was such a strong opponent.

Majority of the incentives are from Amazon’s taxes. 27B in economic activity for 3B in tax breaks for just 10 years is wayyy better than almost every other corporate deal. Better than Tesla for sure. That 3B will no longer be generated. You want a net 24B or a net 0B? New Yorkers chose 0

It's New York City, we don't need to give the largest company in the world a huge discount to do business here. It's not like the economic development of NYC is dependent on Amazon. It's a central hub to so many industries because of its infrastructure, talent, connection to capital markets etc, not because of handing out discounts.

> we don't need to give the largest company in the world a huge discount to do business here

Looks like you do, because now we have - no discount, no business.

> It's not like the economic development of NYC is dependent on Amazon

Of course, losing several billions of added value and 25K jobs won't kill the economy of the size of New York. Just as shooting oneself in the foot won't kill most healthy people. But keep at it, and sooner or later there would be a surprising development that the health is not what it once was...

Amazon is already in New York and their own statement today says they will continue expanding those teams despite not moving forward with HQ2. No discount, still business. "There are currently over 5,000 Amazon employees in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Staten Island, and we plan to continue growing these teams."

> No discount, still business

Not the business that was conditional on the discount.

NYC generates about 10% of US GDP, already houses Amazon, Google, and every other global player. We have our fingers in everything already. We don’t need to play this kind of needy urban development three-card monty nonsense to continue kicking ass economically all day and night long.

Again, shooting oneself in the foot by losing 25K jobs won't kill New York. It just would make it a little poorer than it otherwise could be (some people a real lot poorer - talk to some RE developers that bought properly expecting Amazon to move in nearby...) New York doesn't need HQ2, it doesn't need any one particular development at all. But if it starts approaching all of them with this attitude, it gradually will start losing them, one by one, becoming poorer and poorer as they go. Would it kill it? Probably not, Detroit still exists. Is it a smart way to conduct affairs? I guess that's for New Yorkers to decide, if they think losing 25K jobs and billions in future tax income worth sticking it to Bezos - well, they can rejoice.

Amazon’s loss is another company’s gain. There will be more deals and more jobs, you’re acting like this is a recoverable loss when this is not a loss at all but an opportunity for someone else to fill the void, without drastic tax breaks.

New York City wasn't going to give Amazon a special discount. The company qualified for existing incentive programs that are already available to everyone: the Relocation and Employment Assistance Program, and the Industrial & Commercial Abatement Program.

https://www.nycedc.com/program/relocation-and-employment-ass...

https://www.nycedc.com/program/industrial-commercial-abateme...

It doesn't make a lot of sense for a city to offer incentive programs and then complain when companies attempt to use them. The city should make up its political mind about what incentive programs are available, and who qualifies for them, as part of the decision about whether to offer such programs. Programs should then be implemented neutrally, in a way that does not play favorites or pick winners and losers. Many other companies have benefited from these programs - the entire point of these programs is to achieve some kind of policy objective by being used.

The uproar in this case seems more like political brinkmanship, not any kind of sound economic policy designed to benefit the constituents of the city. These incentive programs were presumably passed in the first place to benefit constituents - that's why they're there, to attract additional investment to areas of the city that otherwise would not receive it. ("The Relocation and Employment Assistance Program (REAP) provides a refundable business tax credit for commercial and industrial businesses relocating to designated areas of New York City and making capital improvements to their space")

If people in NYC think that these incentive programs are a bad idea, harmful, inappropriate, or whatever else, then they should direct their anger at their political representatives, and cancel those incentive programs - not direct anger at the companies who take up the offer that the city put forward.

Other businesses can move into those spaces and will end up paying more in taxes. Property values will go up slower. Having one company move in sounds great but diversity might be a better longterm strategy.

> Other businesses can move into those spaces and will end up paying more in taxes

The first is likely, the second is very unlikely. For the simple reason that Amazon would not plan such project in a market that is so hot that is able to generate tax income at the same rate as concentrated investment project of the Amazon HQ size. Surely, it won't turn into a barren wasteland, but I would not expect it to produce more in tax revenue than big development like Amazon HQ would.

Time will tell.

Except it isn’t 0. It’s far from 0! LIC’s growth is really impressive without Amazon.

The waterfront is slowly getting nicer, but as soon as you go even a few blocks inwards it's still sketchy and/or industrial. An anchor like Amazon HQ would have had a ripple effect of improving the whole area (like maybe we could finally get a decent grocery store? It's cheaper to take the train into Manhattan and go to Whole Foods than visiting the local LIC Food Cellar and Key Food markets!), especially the more eastern neighborhoods within walking distance, which really aren't seeing much of any development today.

I guess the huge Citigroup office does not count? Also when last I looked a bunch of high rises were going up near Sunnyside Yard which is pretty far from the waterfront.

When I was 16 LIC was a pretty sketchy place, but as of a few years ago when I lived there it was completely different. There is still some light industry related to food trucks and taxi cabs, but you have to walk pretty far to get to anything more significant. The only sketchy area I can think of is the Queensbridge projects but that is north of the 59th st. bridge and pretty far from the rest of the neighborhood.

I know the Key Foods you are talking about - I used to live nearby it roughly 10 years ago. I can’t believe that it’s still really the only choice. Something is holding back LIC’s development to where it doesn’t seem to be keeping pace with surrounding areas. I think amazon could have been a big boon to getting things like a Whole Foods or other, better grocery stores into the area.

But that economic activity will go _somewhere_, and allowing businesses to pressure them into tax breaks is collectively gutting the ability of many city governments to function.

Those city govts can choose 0 in new business or new business with jobs and income taxes and property value increases.

A business choosing a location is a business transaction, as is city taxation choices. Both can freely choose how to woo the other.

NYC chose to lose possible decades of high paying jobs over their unwillingness to deal.

NYC is not exactly desperate. NYC is the anchor of an enormous economy that houses dozens upon dozens of large corporate offices and a vast number of jobs at all pay levels. NYC can afford to not deal with a corporation that is known for its poor working conditions and that did not even conduct its search in good faith.

Other cities are not so fortunate, but Amazon has no interest in truly desperate cities (or even cities that are not so desperate but could use the boost, like Newark and Baltimore).

NYC as a whole not being desperate still makes throwing billions in income for residents, not all of whom make as much as Amazon would bring, a dumb move.

Amazon’s role is not charity. It is to be as productive as possible. NYC does have the role in being a good steward of resources for its citizens. It threw out a lot of money and job for them due to a vocal minority.

I'll choose that 0 over giving away 3 billion every day. I don't care how you try to justify this sort of corruption.

There was no "giving away" anything. There was "not taxing Amazon as harshly as others". It's like I tell you "I want to rent space on your frontyard for my sign" and you say "ok, $100 per day would do nicely" and I say "I need it for the whole month and $3K it too much, maybe $1.5K would do it?" and you say "I am not giving you away fifteen hundred bucks!". Then I say "OK, was nice talking to you" and you got $0 now instead of $1.5K you could have. But you're somehow happy you didn't "give away $1.5K", which you never had.

Perhaps consider having even a mild understanding of how tax incentives work before spouting nonsense righteous indignation?

Perhaps consider that not everyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant fool.

You can “disagree” all day long, but the fact remains your comment demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of how tax incentives work.

Queens: 55% support, 39% oppose

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02/14/amazon-kills-plan-bui...

It’s always the intolerant minority that controls the action. The majority thatbisnok either way will not be heard, because they are ok either way.

I think the numbers in these pools are moderate enough to cast doubt on your claim. Would need to know about methodology, who paid for the survey, etc.

Even after reading this, I think the claim “most New Yorkers supported the project” is extremely dubious.

They sank it?

Amazon could have easily ignored them for all eternity if they wanted. A vocal minority can't influence a random housing development, you think they had any say over Amazon? That's a STRETCH

The politician that grants approval to the developments was just selected. He is the most anti Amazon person, he grants approval or not with a small committee. He refused to even meet with Amazon executives. 3 times they asked for an audience, he rejected all 3 and chose to grandstand. He built a name for himself, saw him on the news this morning and he looked like a complete fool.