That said, addressing rising rents by limiting the number of high-paying jobs in a city seems like one of the worst possible ways to approach the problem.
My own experience in NYC's tech scene is that a plurality of tech workers come from outside the city, and I am skeptical that their presence nevertheless "lifts all boats" via Seamless orders and bar tabs.
Having a district-level focus seems like a poor resolution -- should queens residents then conversely be restricted from working in Manhattan? It seems pretty regressive since poorer districts would get poorer.
People grow up in their neighborhoods and are connected to them and proud of them. Their are ways to bring up a neighborhood without pricing its residents out of living there.
The main issue that progressives took with all of this is that Amazon pays $0 in federal tax, demanded $3 billion in local tax breaks, and offered very little enforceable things in return.
We can't just let huge companies run around asking major cities to bend over for them and offer up their money and their souls for almost nothing in return.
Citation to actual financial statements needed. Their most recent 10-K indicates they paid $1.2B in total taxes.
> demanded $3 billion in local tax breaks
No, they didn't. At least $2.5B of that is on the table for any company that wants to build and office for 25,000 people in LIC.
> offered very little enforceable things in return
Not sure what you mean here. The majority of the tax breaks are directly tied to headcount or construction. No hiring/construction == no credits.
Right. Leaving $500MM in cold hard taxpayer dollars to build a building for the richest guy in the world so he could promptly compete with local businesses. Which, to be clear, was not something a lot of those taxpayers were happy about.
No one is suggesting restricting anyone's ability to work but you can't be surprised when people elected to represent a district act with only that district in mind.
I also live in this district but work in tech and have a market rate salary. Amazon moving in would be good for people like me, but the average resident of this district is much closer my MIL.
> Would your mother-in-law not rather work in a hotel closer to home? Not everyone has to work directly for Amazon in order to benefit from the investment. Increased numbers of high-paying jobs means increased spending and new businesses in the area, as well.
Sure, maybe she could work at a brand-spanking new hotel next to HQ2 in her former neighborhood -- after she's been driven out of it by rising rents caused by HQ2.
I think it's easy to understand why people in Queens would fight against a similar fate.
I'd say limiting high-density housing is really what has brought down the Bay Area. In contrast, New York has mostly embraced high-density housing. Take a look at LIC: https://www.6sqft.com/queens-new-skyline-a-rundown-of-the-30...
When you build upwards, the sky is the limit, literally.
For example:
Also, forcing people to move into low-density homes seems regressive. It can be an option.
So perhaps it's less harmful for the current residents of Queens, but it's still negative. Why should they not oppose that?
- stop all jobs growth in Manhattan (10min subway ride to LIC)
- and/or we'd have to put a cap on salaries (what happens to doctors? minimum wage? how do they pay med school loans?)
- and/or ensure LIC residents dont commute to well-paying jobs in Manhattan
- and/or ensure only low paying jobs are created in LIC (how many mechanics jobs and other non corporate jobs can LIC support? Why havent they already been created?)
All of the above seem silly. At some point, you'd almost be breaking off LIC into a self-sufficient fiefdom in itself. The assumption would be that all the benefits that came from banding together as a city and creating a modern society were net negative to the residents of LIC. This seems quaint but doesn't feel right to me.
I suspect we could find many people who do think life was better before tech and finance took over. Not only in LIC, but in blue, pink, and even some white collar neighborhoods around the country.
Whether their opinion feels right to us here on Hacker News is only relevant to the extent that our political influence outweighs theirs (if it does).
It won't actually change much since Long Island City is still booming, but you could say the same thing about building housing; every little bit helps.
Amazon is welcome to expand without a deal, and in fact they still are, just not a brand new HQ2.
Her speaking out against Amazon was her speaking out against something that is not within her sphere of competence or within her elected sphere of influence.
She's a citizen of the state and city and, as such, should indeed have “political authority” to influence decisions state and city officials make.
The key issue here is rising rent, and this is something Local politicians (AOC in particular) campaign on. A significant portion of people here would see their rents go up without seeing any additional benefits.
How would you expect an elected official, who campaigned against higher rents, to justify not opposing Amazon?