Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Titan_Astraeus t1_ja3ilht wrote

Reply to comment by akmalhot in Mayor Adams’ top public safety official refuses to explain role by irish_fellow_nyc

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.

1

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

1

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.

1

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

0