• Light/Dark

NY Gov. Cuomo, NYC Mayor DiBlasio run a full page ad in the New York Times begging Amazon to come back to Long Island City

MPrice

Alt account
Banned
Oct 18, 2019
654
krazen said:
Yup, when they don't care about the rest of the neighborhood while doing it.

'maximizing value' is how we got in this mess of corrupt capitalism, be it corporate welfare to maximize shareholder value, or a taxpayers funding a megacorporation's move so the local landowners can get rich
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Its peak fuck you got mine. Crying because a handful of people didn't get to profit off the backs off of all NYC citizens.



jon bones said:
bad news, housing is already to the point where people can't afford it. forgive me for wishing we all enjoy the same property value growth as previous generations.



i believe sans-taxbreaks it would have a net positive on the region. as long as citizens don't subsidize it, it would great to have a job hub like that in queens.



i don't think you understand the picture you posted, but OK. if amazon came to queens sans tax breaks, how am i advocating for welfare for the rich?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Lol this is so fucking hilarious. "Will somebody anybody please think of my property gains!" So fucking shamelessly selfish. The only reason Amazon didn't choose NYC is because they weren't going to get tax breaks. Nobody is stopping them. If they wanted to build in NYC without the welfare, they would have been welcomed.
 
effingvic

effingvic

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,560
jon bones said:
i believe sans-taxbreaks it would have a net positive on the region. as long as citizens don't subsidize it, it would great to have a job hub like that in queens.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As a local resident and a tech worker, I strongly disagree with this. I dont want these motherfuckers in my neighborhood and I dont want my friends and family to become displaced just so your wages and properly value can go up. Fuck your gains tbh.

Akita One said:
Exactly, all these jobs are going to college educated people and Amazon corporate transfers. Unlike the original HQ deal, zero of these jobs will be unionized and zero low-income residents and residents of housing projects will be getting jobs for this. And this is in the "new downtown" of the city that people like AOC would have been opposed to the very creation of.

But yeah...the very fact that people are trying to spin this as a win tells you all you need to know. If the Amazon HQ "defeat" was so perfect in every way, then why are people trying to spin this? This is just another corporate office in Manhattan.

Honestly this is the first negative thing I've seen AOC tweet...she should really be above this. She is acting like she took on Amazon all by herself, and the spin in her tweet is very disappointing considering that the deal was not finalized and the unions were trying to negotiate. People keep forgetting that the whole negotiations around the HQ2 was based around unionized jobs and above minimum wage jobs for public housing residents.

Regardless of what you think about Amazon and the original deal, she had nothing to do with this new office and it is in no way an equivalent to an HQ2. It's a very arrogant tweet on her part.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

She's tweeting this because she's the one that got all the bullshit from the politicians and pundits for months on end. She was always right and she deserves to enjoy it.
 

Deleted member 6582

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,789
Just so we're clear, housing doesn't become unaffordable because Amazon comes in, it becomes unaffordable because Amazon comes in and existing property owners refuse to let anyone build more. Using corporate fearmongering to morally launder NIMBYism is continually one of the most disastrous things in left-leaning politics. It's the same for traffic too. It stresses infrastructure because existing commuters want to continue to own cars and drive, and because they can, they continually defund public transit they elect not to use and instead put that money into horrifically expensive and inefficient road-widening and highways.

Also, I think AOC's critics here still have valid points, she didn't invalidate any of the arguments just added a couple of hard to confirm asteriks for what might have been. Granted no large city should ever give corporations tax breaks because they don't need to, if you have talent they will come anyway. Still, Amazon's investment will be lower, and maybe that is a good thing if your city is having growing pains. But all the bad things about new corporate offices will continue regardless, because these problems are not problems with new high paying jobs, they are problems with poor city management.
 
Aureon

Aureon

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,819
Somnid said:
Just so we're clear, housing doesn't become unaffordable because Amazon comes in, it becomes unaffordable because Amazon comes in and existing property owners refuse to let anyone build more. Using corporate fearmongering to morally launder NIMBYism is continually one of the most disastrous things in left-leaning politics. It's the same for traffic too. It stresses infrastructure because existing commuters want to continue to own cars and drive, and because they can, they continually defund public transit they elect not to use and instead put that money into horrifically expensive road-widening and highways.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yup.
HOAs are a fucking capitalist evil.
 

MPrice

Alt account
Banned
Oct 18, 2019
654
Somnid said:
Just so we're clear, housing doesn't become unaffordable because Amazon comes in, it becomes unaffordable because Amazon comes in and existing property owners refuse to let anyone build more. Using corporate fearmongering to morally launder NIMBYism is continually one of the most disastrous things in left-leaning politics. It's the same for traffic too. It stresses infrastructure because existing commuters want to continue to own cars and drive, and because they can, they continually defund public transit they elect not to use and instead put that money into horrifically expensive and inefficient road-widening and highways.

Also, I think AOC's critics here still have valid points, she didn't invalidate any of the arguments just added a couple of hard to confirm asteriks for what might have been. Granted no large city should ever give corporations tax breaks because they don't need to, if you have talent they will come anyway. Still, Amazon's investment will be lower, and maybe that is a good thing if your city is having growing pains. But all the bad things about new corporate offices will continue regardless, because these problems are not problems with new high paying jobs, they are problems with poor city management.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What points do AOC's critics have exactly? All I can see is people misrepresenting her arguments. She wasn't against HQ2, she was against the tax breaks and subsidies. And Amazon wasn't coming without those tax breaks and subisidies. What exactly am I missing here?

Its like people secretly want to say that NYC should've just bent over but are scared. Like own it.
 
Netherscourge

Netherscourge

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,075
Your property taxes will go up faster than the value of your house, since Amazon won't be paying much taxes at all and the state will want to capitalize on that money it's missing out on.
 
NinjaGarden

NinjaGarden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,551
Somnid said:
Just so we're clear, housing doesn't become unaffordable because Amazon comes in, it becomes unaffordable because Amazon comes in and existing property owners refuse to let anyone build more. Using corporate fearmongering to morally launder NIMBYism is continually one of the most disastrous things in left-leaning politics. It's the same for traffic too. It stresses infrastructure because existing commuters want to continue to own cars and drive, and because they can, they continually defund public transit they elect not to use and instead put that money into horrifically expensive and inefficient road-widening and highways.

Also, I think AOC's critics here still have valid points, she didn't invalidate any of the arguments just added a couple of hard to confirm asteriks for what might have been. Granted no large city should ever give corporations tax breaks because they don't need to, if you have talent they will come anyway. Still, Amazon's investment will be lower, and maybe that is a good thing if your city is having growing pains. But all the bad things about new corporate offices will continue regardless, because these problems are not problems with new high paying jobs, they are problems with poor city management.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
NYC is not San Francisco. There's a lot of new housing being built in LIC but it's mostly luxury apartments.
 
NinjaGarden

NinjaGarden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,551

simplayer

Member
Oct 27, 2017
137
NinjaGarden said:
Long Island City has been the fastest growing neighborhood in the country for several years.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Okay, housing markets are bigger than one city.

So again, housing per capita is higher in SF than NYC https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vxquw-T72QQ6oZn8VaL0_9UPzHFip-0CdNn1dirL83I/htmlview
 
Titik

Titik

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,490
Yup, people getting displaced because a tech company came is a symptom, not the cause. The cause is treating housing as an investment vehicle and property owners having more influence compared to renters. Property owners form the bulk of any NIMBY coalition that is railroading any form of smart housing alleviation in almost any community in the USA.
 

Deleted member 6582

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,789
MPrice said:
What points do AOC's critics have exactly? All I can see is people misrepresenting her arguments. She wasn't against HQ2, she was against the tax breaks and subsidies. And Amazon wasn't coming without those tax breaks and subisidies. What exactly am I missing here?

Its like people secretly want to say that NYC should've just bent over but are scared. Like own it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The two points she's addressing are still true. It's not HQ2 and it's not in Queens. Now, she can and should argue that agreeing to the Amazon plan is a raw deal but the problem is her "told ya so" is selling it like she got that without a tax concession. Nobody actually made the argument that Amazon wouldn't have continued with organic expansion of existing offices, that was a given, it was all over how much of an investment they would be putting in. Basically, if her point was that the deal was bad, this does not prove it one way or the other.

NinjaGarden said:
NYC is not San Francisco. There's a lot of new housing being built in LIC but it's mostly luxury apartments.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is a NIMBY talking point. Luxury apartments happen when NIMBYism takes hold and it becomes too restrictive to build anything else. It's important to understand that housing takes many years to fix, if you identify it today you're trying to fix it in a decade or so. But it also doesn't matter what you build as long as it's dense, luxury apartments today are mid-level housing in 10-20 years, as long as you have enough of them, prices will fall but nothing will cause them to fall today short of a natural disaster.
 
Last edited:
Titik

Titik

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,490
Housing does indeed take a long time to fix but I doubt many people realize this. Here in LA, we approved billions of dollars to help our homeless folks but then the homeless population actually increased. People then called for the heads of city leaders when the funds they approved was only meant to help those that fell through the cracks, not actually fix the crack. The funds did help about 30,000 people (out of the estimated 60K homeless population) but about 35,000 new homeless people were added because the root cause was never addressed by these funds and was never meant to be.
 

MPrice

Alt account
Banned
Oct 18, 2019
654
Somnid said:
The two points she's addressing are still true. It's not HQ2 and it's not in Queens. Now, she can and should argue that agreeing to the Amazon plan is a raw deal but the problem is her "told ya so" is selling it like she got that without a tax concession. Nobody actually made the argument that Amazon wouldn't have continued with organic expansion of existing offices, that was a given, it was all over how much of an investment they would be putting in. Basically, if her point was that the deal was bad, this does not prove it one way or the other.



This is a NIMBY talking point. Luxury apartments happen when NIMBYism takes hold and it becomes too restrictive to build anything else. It's important to understand that housing takes many years to fix, if you identify it today you're trying to fix it in a decade or so. But it also doesn't matter what you build as long as it's dense, luxury apartments today are mid-level housing in 10-20 years, as long as you have enough of them, prices will fall but nothing will cause them to fall today short of a natural disaster.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Who cares if its not HQ2 or that it is in a different part of the city? Amazon wanted the whole of NYC to fork over millions in capital and billions in tax breaks, not just Queens. Its a shit deal, that point is evergreen.

The point that she is driving home is that it doesn't take bending over to get a company like Amazon to expand in your city. I'm pretty sure that she's well aware that this isn't the original HQ2 monstrosity and that its not in Queens. I also think people are overplaying her involvement. She's a US senator, not a NY one. She is simply lobbying and garnered alot of support which forced Amazon's hand. Bernie is taking victory laps about this as well.

Ultimately the story of whether HQ2 would have been a boom or a success will be told in Virginia.
 

nitewulf

Member
Nov 29, 2017
7,260
I actually have friends on both sides of the debate, one friend who lives in Sunnyside and organized Primedout NYC, works for a tech company. Another friend who owns a house and bemoaned the lost potential gains of the price of his house as an investment instrument, also a lead developer for a tech company.

The thing is, if you own a house in NYC, and work within the tech sector, you will be OK for retirement. Compare to the migrant locals, single parents with multiple jobs, no 401K, stock options, benefits. A property should be for living, utilization of property as investment instrument is one of the main issues facing cities like NYC, London, Sydney, Vancouver etc. Where rich middle eastern and asian investors are buying up property and leaving them empty. It does absolutely nothing for the local economy. Your property is meant for people to live in, if utilized as a rental or whatever, it should ideally grow in value at a sustained rate and it will in a city like NYC. The added superficial boost due to influx of potential highly paid workers within the vicinity is exactly that, speculative price increase not tied to natural growth.

Even though not wealthy like Jay Z, you are still within the top 2% - 5% of the country by asset. Think about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.