Amazon HQ2 RFP

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where are the NIMBYs on this? Hello? Silence. So, sportsball stadiums, shadows and digital signage, bad. A company that's not only miserable to work for, but also ready to come in and force the have-nots onto the streets, good? I don't know else to say, other than the mind of the Boston NIMBY is like a labyrinth. Do we truly want to be a smaller, shitter version of San Francisco?

If neighborhood activists speak out, then I'll stand with them. But if they stay silent, then I'll know that they're full-blown hypocrites.
 
kingofsheeba said:
Where are the NIMBYs on this? Hello? Silence. So, sportsball stadiums, shadows and digital signage, bad. A company that's not only miserable to work for, but also ready to come in and force the have-nots onto the streets, good? I don't know else to say, other than the mind of the Boston NIMBY is like a labyrinth. Do we truly want to be a smaller, shitter version of San Francisco?

If neighborhood activists speak out, then I'll stand with them. But if they stay silent, then I'll know that they're full-blown hypocrites.
Click to expand...

They're not difficult to understand at all. They live and breath to get their names in the paper and get projects cancelled or reduced. Then with that affirmation the cycle begins again.

Since they have no actual morals or principles beyond headlines, put Amazon HQ in that context. What are they fighting against? Stopping Suffolk Downs from getting redeveloped? There's also no actual subsidies being shared publically yet, so no angle to play there. I'd also speculate aside from a few dead-enders who wish the city would go back to 1965 the public is overwhelmingly in favor of Amazon locating here (subject to state $$$ which again is undefined).

So, why did these idiots go balls to the wall against the Winthrop Square project, while not saying boo to 1 Dalton which is actually taller and presumably causes wind and shadow issues along with making city more crowded/unaffordable/blah blah blah. Because they thought the public would overwhelmingly side with them over the shadows on the common in January argument. In short, they went after the argument that they thought they'd get an easier win on, when if they had any principles they'd be against both equally.
 
The nice thing about it is that pretty much all the employees will be single and kidless... and won't be doing much other than working at Amazon. So they'll pay plenty of taxes while not needing much in the way of city services.
 
City of Baltimore officials did a de-brief on their bid -- minus financials -- for reporters. Said they didn't make the cut because the reservoir of tech talent was not deep enough.
 
Last edited:
Rover said:
Nothing about the ever rising body count and totally dysfunctional city government?

From yesterday: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/19/homicides-toll-big-u-s-cities-2017/302763002/
Click to expand...

Thankfully that is another metric that Boston is doing much much better at than in the past. And if anything our murder rate would be lower if you include the surrounding areas that most other big cities include.

Really sad to see some of those cities hit so hard by violence. The misfortune of others is nothing to gloat over.
 
tangent said:
Thankfully that is another metric that Boston is doing much much better at than in the past. And if anything our murder rate would be lower if you include the surrounding areas that most other big cities include.

Really sad to see some of those cities hit so hard by violence. The misfortune of others is nothing to gloat over.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It is what it is. Nothing to gloat over, but an honest assessment of the dangerousness of certain places and the impotence of city leaders to address violence is a valid topic. Places like NYC and LA have made tremendous strides in reducing homicides while other (Chicago, Baltimore) are still mired in dysfunction decades later.
 
Rover said:
Agreed. It is what it is. Nothing to gloat over, but an honest assessment of the dangerousness of certain places and the impotence of city leaders to address violence is a valid topic. Places like NYC and LA have made tremendous strides in reducing homicides while other (Chicago, Baltimore) are still mired in dysfunction decades later.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am sure Amazon is factoring in the crime rates.

NYC, LA (and Boston) are good examples of taking a bad situation and making it better with community policing and applying some aspects of a broken windows approach to addressing low level crime before people escalate.

Hopefully those other cities can learn from others successes and stop repeating the same mistakes over and over and over.
 
Atlanta's bid may have fallen off the table.

The lieutenant governor in Georgia threatened on Monday to kill a proposed lucrative tax cut for Delta Air Lines after the company eliminated a discount fare program for the National Rifle Association over the weekend.
....
Mr. Cagle, a Republican, fired the salvo at Delta on Twitter on Monday afternoon, saying that the Atlanta-based company must restore its program with the N.R.A. “Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back,”
...
Mr. Cagle, who received an A+ grade by the N.R.A. when he was running for his position in 2006,
Click to expand...


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/...lights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront
 
Suffolk 83 said:
Hey Stellar, why are you so invested in Amazon HQ? Sorry if it's been mentioned before I just gloss over this thread
Click to expand...

In the distant past, I did or oversaw plans for mega re-organizations and moving thousands and tens of thousands of people around, so its in the genes. That, and Yucca Mountain.
 
FenwayResident said:
I agree, I think that move seriously hurts if not kills Atlanta's chances. Why would a company like Amazon ever want a HQ in a state that will take their tax breaks hostage to force regressive policy? No way that flies with Bezos.
Click to expand...

Worse yet if I were Delta I'd be telling the guy we're relocating if you go through with that shit. GA Goopers used to be a lot like the communist party in China, with their primary focus on ensuring a booming economy to keep the support of the citizenry. Interesting that they started threatening one of the signature companies in the state (even though Delta as an airline sucks).
 
FenwayResident said:
I agree, I think that move seriously hurts if not kills Atlanta's chances. Why would a company like Amazon ever want a HQ in a state that will take their tax breaks hostage to force regressive policy? No way that flies with Bezos.
Click to expand...

https://splinternews.com/amazon-mad...99.1774777442.1519651636-655680292.1512141788

Bezos may care about the APPEARANCE of being a liberal but when it comes to his money he's far from it. Good article here about that. I've long thought it should be illegal what he's doing to pit cities against each other. The mainstream media should be taking this angle but it seems many won't. It's why I refuse to be a fan boy for Boston getting Amazon, beyond the fact that it would hurt many of Boston area residents. Especially those that dont already own property.
 
Rover said:
GA Goopers used to be a lot like the communist party in China, with their primary focus on ensuring a booming economy to keep the support of the citizenry.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse the rational, progressive Atlanta business community with the rest of the GA Goobers. Atlanta is a bright blue island in a sea of red and the rural reps do all they can to punish the city for it's progressive views. Makes no sense but there it is, many feel the rural conservatives are threatened by a company like Amazon moving into the city which would bring more young, progressives (who vote) into the state. My Facebook feed today is filled with many, many posts, similiar to what Stellarfun posted here, about how the Lt. Governor's comments just killed the Amazon bid. Time will tell.
 
kingofsheeba said:
Where are the NIMBYs on this? Hello? Silence. So, sportsball stadiums, shadows and digital signage, bad. A company that's not only miserable to work for, but also ready to come in and force the have-nots onto the streets, good? I don't know else to say, other than the mind of the Boston NIMBY is like a labyrinth. Do we truly want to be a smaller, shitter version of San Francisco?

If neighborhood activists speak out, then I'll stand with them. But if they stay silent, then I'll know that they're full-blown hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Honestly I don't think anyone would be against this if we provided no incentives. Most of the Olympic NIMBY's were rightfully worried that we'd spend billions of tax dollars on what amounts to a two week party.

It's the incentives where things will get testy. But the state/city has yet to publicize any incentives package, so the NIMBY's have stayed quiet.

But as far as companies moving here, that's a positive no matter how you slice it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top