• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amazon cancels plans to build New York headquarters

noonereal said:
You really want your daughter wandering around the USA and Europe, just free styling?

And you like the idea of your daughter living alone in the city?

We are very different parents.
Deuce said:
Women can't live on their own, eh? :lamo
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Not different parents, different era. In the 1960s there was a TV show starring Marlow Thomas, called "That Girl," about a single woman who had a career and lived by herself (basically, every woman that I dated after I was 23) -- hardly unusual today but shocking in the 1960s.
 
Phys251 said:
Another thing: Where the heck would they put the new HQ? NYC is an extremely dense city with just about every square inch taken by something.
Click to expand...
Long Island City (Queens) -- just across from Manhattan. it's a booming commercial and residential area. 25 years ago, Citibank built an office building here -- the first one. Now, there are skyscrapers all over. There is still room, so that's not the issue.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
No surprise really. I doubt Amazon expected the kind of backlash they got, but the reality is NYC doesn't need Amazon's HQ there.
Click to expand...

Those grapes were sour anyway....
 
MTAtech said:
Not different parents, different era. In the 1960s there was a TV show starring Marlow Thomas, called "That Girl," about a single woman who had a career and lived by herself (basically, every woman that I dated after I was 23) -- hardly unusual today but shocking in the 1960s.
Click to expand...

That Girl (loved that show! I had a crush on Donald) and The Mary Tyler Moore show broke so many barriers. Both shows about young single women living on their own.

I can't believe any parent would not want their daughter to experience the fun that those two women did in their shows - and what I did as a young single woman in the 1980s.
 
holbritter said:
Make that 3. Mine lives in Brooklyn.
Click to expand...

You've posted about her before. Hope she is doing well.

Do you know what she's paying in rent for her place? My niece and her husband are looking to move to Brooklyn and I'm curious how the rent situation is there compared to Manhattan.
 
JasperL said:
OK, your point is what? Why are you cutting and pasting articles that tell me nothing new and don't even pretend to respond to any point I made?
Click to expand...

The facts presented decisively refute your claims about business relocation incentives, at least insofar as the Virginia package was concerned.
 
JasperL said:
OK, your link starts with this:



If there's some part of that article that shows the integral role AOC played in killing the deal, you'll have to quote it because I didn't see it.
Click to expand...

The role she actually played is less important than the coverage she received (and apparently reveled in). Please note that the article is accompanied by a color photo of AOC. It also includes this text:

". . . Opponents, including freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), protested that the influx of Amazon employees, to be paid an average salary of at least $150,000 a year, would cause housing costs to skyrocket, drive out low-income residents and worsen congestion on the subway and streets.
They also objected to the up to $3 billion in state and local incentives promised to Amazon, the world’s most valuable company headed by Jeffrey P. Bezos, the world’s wealthiest person. (Bezos also owns The Washington Post.)
Ocasio-Cortez — who has attracted national attention for her liberal views, and whose district borders the proposed Amazon site — hailed the company’s pullout. . . ."
 
Jack Hays said:
The role she actually played is less important than the coverage she received (and apparently reveled in). Please note that the article is accompanied by a color photo of AOC. It also includes this text:

". . . Opponents, including freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), protested that the influx of Amazon employees, to be paid an average salary of at least $150,000 a year, would cause housing costs to skyrocket, drive out low-income residents and worsen congestion on the subway and streets.
They also objected to the up to $3 billion in state and local incentives promised to Amazon, the world’s most valuable company headed by Jeffrey P. Bezos, the world’s wealthiest person. (Bezos also owns The Washington Post.)
Ocasio-Cortez — who has attracted national attention for her liberal views, and whose district borders the proposed Amazon site — hailed the company’s pullout. . . ."
Click to expand...

and let's not forget her idiotic comments in celebration yesterday that was broadcast across the country.
 
JasperL said:
I don't know why you think I care about your cut and pasted articles. This one is apparently from the Federalist. Breitbart didn't have an article for you? Do you think if a right wing propaganda outlet asserts something, it's an actual argument? :roll:
Click to expand...

Too bad you seek refuge from the data by hiding behind an ad hominem argument. The important thing is the public polling data, which will continue.
 
noonereal said:
and let's not forget her idiotic comments in celebration yesterday that was broadcast across the country.
Click to expand...

Seriously. She needs to put down Twitter, step away from the cameras and take some lessons from people in her party who know how this works.

She celebrated losing 25k jobs, and then stupidly said that NY can now use 3 billion in tax incentives to pay for other things in the community. Umm no, Alexandria, that’s not how tax incentives work.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
Seriously. She needs to put down Twitter, step away from the cameras and take some lessons from people in her party who know how this works.

She celebrated losing 25k jobs, and then stupidly said that NY can now use 3 billion in tax incentives to pay for other things in the community. Umm no, Alexandria, that’s not how tax incentives work.
Click to expand...

I am praying Nancy grabs her by her hair and drags her to her office for a lesson in politics 101. (maybe economics 101 too)
 
sangha said:
Very weak,

He gave you both a reasonable explanation and a link to support it.
Click to expand...

The world of economics has its own specific definitions. I didn't create them. For the technicalities, standard economic textbooks delineate those definitions, not two bit journalists playing at political reporting. Merely because economics are a liberal art does not allow for those who never studied economics to redefine terms. There are good reasons for honoring those definitions. Tax abatements, credits, are not cash up front. Subsidization is a form of financing new businesses and projects, or payments by government to reduce commodity or product prices. We lose the language, we lose the logic.
 
Surrealistik said:
To be clear, dismissing Jasper's very salient points on the basis of a technicality with respect to a specific, academic definition of subsidy, despite the word often and increasingly being used to describe any material, monetary financial aid or benefit provided by the government to an economic actor, including tax breaks, abatements, low/no interest loans, etc... is pure pedantism to the point of absurdity, and doesn't actually blunt any of his arguments, nor does it actually suggest ignorance to the point of needing some kind of remedial education on economics in order to participate in this back and forth with you.

Perhaps you should try actually rebutting?
Click to expand...

It is what it is.
 
holbritter said:
You're just pissed you're not going to be able to make even more money on all those properties you own.
Click to expand...

LOL. At my age, I don't need more money. We're not selling anything we own. For us the rents are stable, pursuant to long term net leases which are not subject to the presence of other developments. We built two condo buildings on land that was long vacant well planned long before Amazon came along. Their location, 1 subway stop to Manhattan creates their initial value, plus the quality of construction. We sell raw units, custom build out to first time buyer's choices.

I'm angry with two specific politicians who gave no thought to the community at large, only their own egotistical spite games. Nothing new in the world of politics.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
Seriously. She needs to put down Twitter, step away from the cameras and take some lessons from people in her party who know how this works.

She celebrated losing 25k jobs, and then stupidly said that NY can now use 3 billion in tax incentives to pay for other things in the community. Umm no, Alexandria, that’s not how tax incentives work.
Click to expand...

noonereal said:
exactly

she is hurting her own causes

idiot
Click to expand...









 
PoS said:
Interesting. I once knew a Jewish friend who lived in Greenwich in a rent controlled apartment for about $1K a month. This was ten years ago and I havent been in touch with him since. Do you know if the rent control stuff is still around?
Click to expand...

Yes it is, protected, tho rare. I know of rent controlled units throughout the city with rents as low as $180 per month, including some in better parts of Manhattan. Rent control remains in effect as long as the tenant remains in a unit consistently and it is a primary residence. These laws do protect some of the long time resident geriatric tenants and are grandfathered into all new rent laws. More common is rent stabilization, which governs rent increases subject to a rental board which meets annually. A battleground between tenant and landlord groups. Today, benefit of rent stabilization is capped by tenant income, earnings over a certain amount (I don't recall the specific amount at the moment and am too lazy to look it up) eliminate protections. Most older housing is rent stabilized, and former rent controlled units forced into rent stabilization subsequent to vacancy. Rent stabilized units can change hands, rent controlled units become decontrolled upon vacancy, subject to rent stabilization. Exceptions are landlord self use which can lead to eviction, which does occasionally occur in buildings once broken up into apartments, but that had originally been 1 family homes. Very rare.

Despite the landlord/tenant battles over rent stabilization increases, I know landlords who prefer the system to open market rentals. No matter the condition of the marketplace, they receive increases annually, and if quality landlords their tenants do not leave. Most new construction of rentals are at market rental. But not many rental units are being built. New construction of residential units is mostly condominium, as opposed to the city long stalwart, cooperative ownerships whereby the tenant buys shares in an owning corporation, and then leases from that corp subject to rules and regulations similar to Homeowner Associations. Condo units have a higher resale price compared to coops in the same neighborhoods.

My apartment is a rent stabilized unit where I have resided for 38 years. My problem is that I am my own landlord, having bought the building 30 years ago out of a bank foreclosure. The building is prewar beauty, with large airy units, excellent appointments, and no tenant wants to leave. The past few years we have lost tenants to death, forced retirement to living assisted facilities and similar life changes. The building is kept immaculately, one of the few apartment buildings in the city with no violations. A new efficient boiler/heating system, and a new elevator. We have a list of prospective tenants to choose from when a unit becomes available. The rents are reasonable for the neighborhood, in keeping with rent stabilization options. It is the only residential property I own, and few of the tenants realize I am their landlord.
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT=&]

[/FONT][FONT=&]







[/FONT]
Click to expand...

She was not the leader...I'm posting just 3, the link mentions a 1/2 dozen others. I KNOW this will not change anyone's on the right mind, they need another bogeyman, but again and for the last time this deal was probably doomed from Day 1. There was too many people, especially in Queens against it. Including Gianaris who might have killed the deal anyway, all by himself.

State Sen. Michael Gianaris( A decisive moment appeared to come when the Senate Democrats selected Senator Michael Gianaris of Queens for a state board with the power to veto the deal.)

The Queens lawmaker, a vocal critic who might have gained the power to veto the deal, said the decision revealed Amazon’s unwillingness to work with the Queens community. Gianaris, a Democrat, represents the state Senate district where Amazon would have built its second headquarters.

“Like a petulant child, Amazon insists on getting its way or takes its ball and leaves,” Gianaris told The New York Times. Gianaris, gesturing to the company’s statement questioned, “Even by their own words, Amazon admits they will grow their presence in New York without their promised subsidies. So what was all this really about?”

New York City Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer

“When our community fights together, anything is possible, even when we’re up against the biggest corporation in the world,” Van Bramer tweeted. “I am proud that we fought for our values, which is a fight for working families, immigrants, & organized labor.”

New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson

“I look forward to working with companies that understand that if you’re willing to engage with New Yorkers and worth through challenging issues New York City is the world’s best place to do business,” Johnson said in a statement. “I hope this is the start of a conversation about vulture capitalism and where our tax dollars are best spent. I know I’d choose mass transit over helipads any day.”

How key players are reacting to Amazon’s pull-out from NYC | CSNY



New York State Sen. Michael Gianaris on Friday defended his opposition to Amazon's now-scuttled plan for what would have been a new headquarters in the Queens section of New York City.

"Amazon needs to get ahold of what they mean to communities, and act responsibility," Gianaris said in an interview with CNBC's "Squawk Box." "When they come in and take over a community like that, the community dies."

The New York Post, known for its edgy cover headlines, called Gianaris "the man who killed the Amazon deal."

Gianaris, whose district includes the Long Island City neighborhood in Queens where Amazon had agreed to build, claims Seattle businesses have not really benefited from having the e-commerce giant based there.

cont...
NY state senator Michael Gianaris defends stopping Amazon deal
 
Last edited:
OldFatGuy said:
The world of economics has its own specific definitions. I didn't create them. For the technicalities, standard economic textbooks delineate those definitions, not two bit journalists playing at political reporting. Merely because economics are a liberal art does not allow for those who never studied economics to redefine terms. There are good reasons for honoring those definitions. Tax abatements, credits, are not cash up front. Subsidization is a form of financing new businesses and projects, or payments by government to reduce commodity or product prices. We lose the language, we lose the logic.
Click to expand...
so even though you completely understand his argument, you're going to dismiss it because he didn't use the term you think is appropriate.

That Sir, is pedantry, pure and simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom