Submitted by irish_fellow_nyc t3_11b6ldl in nyc
akmalhot t1_j9y87yr wrote
Reply to comment by Titan_Astraeus in Mayor Adams’ top public safety official refuses to explain role by irish_fellow_nyc
That land is earmarked for affordable housing? Who's building affordable housing there ???? Please I'd like to know ?
The tax break was completely tied to 25000 jobs
It's been 3 years, what has been built in that space ,? What permits have been filed ?
Titan_Astraeus t1_ja2u7nu wrote
The tax break was tied to jobs yes. But the tax break wasn't the only benefit nor the biggest for Amazon. Hell, does amazon even pay taxes? Getting the land in the first place would've been a battle and they would've had to pay a lot more. Cheap real estate without public push back is what they want. Check their track record, they never meet the big milestone of x number of jobs or whatever. That is like honey dicking the public, bc the politicians and media can say 25k jobs will (potentially) be created, but there is nothing holding anyone to that number for the deal to go through.
They still get preferential treatment and save lots of money, the politicians get an easy win and probably funding or some cushy job when they're done. Meanwhile their actual plan was a few thousand new local jobs. NYC doesn't need to give companies hundreds of millions of dollars to create a few thousand new jobs. That happens organically.
Remember amazon is supposed to be all data driven too. No way that contest was real they wouldn't just randomly pick their new hq location. They had a short list of places they wanted to be and pitted cities against each other to see who would bend over backwards for them.
Affordable housing in this case is kind of a misnomer I guess if you want to be pedantic. It doesn't mean affordable to everyone, it means relatively. One company owned most of that plot and there were plans for new high rise buildings with 5000 units. 1500 of which would be classified as affordable housing. That doesn't mean tenement level, projects.. affordable housing has specific criteria which these units met.. so take up your issue of that definition with the city not me.
Regardless, 5000 new homes, many of which are relatively "more affordable", would greatly improve the housing situation in that area and around the city. There is a shortage, and building newer nice units for people who can afford them theoretically frees up other units for more people to move in.
akmalhot t1_ja315cv wrote
Did those 5000 units get built ?
> NYC doesn't need to give companies hundreds of millions of dollars to create a few thousand new jobs
If it was only a few thousand, there wooldn be no tax break
Not to mention, NYC gives TONS of tax incentives for jobs, I don't understand why Amazon , which per job was significantly less than most tax break given, really bothers you?.
> Happens organically
Are you loving under a rock? Businesses are leaving and only keeping small offices in NY, outside of finance and core tech.. except tech is more wfh .. both commercial and job paying base is being eroded and has been since before the pandemic
You isws to HAVE to have big outposts in NYC to complete for the talent and Inperson stuff, you don't need either for many industries anymore
> Does Amazon even pay taxes
Well, if they don't, then there's no tax break to be had, so no benefit anyway ?
Howard lorburg, one of NYC biggest developers > we haven't started a new project since before the pandemic in NY, it's all SE
Kevin O'Leary on Friday: NYC/NJ is now investible. Why would we put any dollars there when we're getting pushed out for creating new jobs, corruption is high, regulatory hurdles are enormous, and everyone wants handouts to get anything done .. we don't need to buy in NYC to capture the talent pool, and people want remote, so we don't need to operate there of people don't want to come there
Titan_Astraeus t1_ja3ilht wrote
Them having been built is kind of irrelevant to this deal, unless at the time you were able to tell the future. Part of why they haven't been built, yea is there was a global pandemic that totally shifted the way everything is done.. companies are leaving at an increased rate now because of something unexpected that happened afterwards, that's irrelevant to the point in that context.. and again my point is they didn't care about or need the tax break. So yea they planned a few thousand new jobs, not to get the tax break, but would still save hundreds of millions of dollars vs if they tried to purchase the land in a private sale.. as they and others have done across the country numerous times now, the tax breaks don't matter because they almost never actually reach the proposed goal.
akmalhot t1_ja3lvn3 wrote
>Irrelevant
If they were going to hit jon targets, which your confident in, they weren't going to get tax breaks. So it should have zero effect on your decision
You can't have it both ways - they aren't going to bring many jobs and also be upset about a tax break they wouldn't get > Save 100s of millions vs private sale
How is that exactly, the private landowners we're giving Amazon discounts on the land ? The workers were going to do labor for free ?
Other states have been ripping away jobs and development from the northeast through tax incentives and already existing lower taxes .
This has been a trend for many many years , it was only accelerated by the pandemic.. companies had back offices in tax and lower cost / regulatory states ...talent pool was expanding, remote was already happening prepandenic
Office occupancy was much worse than let in, we work, spaces etc occupied a lot of space
But hey y'all are getting what you want fangmula is pulling back on office space
... To be continued in a bit
Titan_Astraeus t1_ja3z3o5 wrote
Their total grants would have been close to $3billion, only half of which were contingent on reaching the jobs milestone.. I'm not arguing that your wrong about the rest, but I don't think anyone should be bending over backwards to accommodate some of the world's largest companies.. I don't feel bad for all the owners of empty office towers, I think a correction may be a good thing so instead of the dick measuring contest of trying to build the tallest and most expensive things we can maybe the city will focus on improving things for the average person rather than the 1% top earners.. it is theoretically a good deal. But with their track record and the fuckery in this city, sounds like it could go bad.
akmalhot t1_ja4n7k0 wrote
WRONG
1.3 of 1.7 billion from the state was purely contingent on reaching 25,000 employees, the remaining would scale if they exceed that number, with 40,000 to get the full 1.7 billion
Amazon also had to build 2 job training centers, a school, improve two subway strips, provide communal green space ...from that the city and state pledged 5 million each towards the job training
1.3 from the city, only part of it was not contingent on the jobs through reduced rent
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments