This just seems like such a messy clusterfuck for Amazon. Their stupid competition did a great job of raising awareness of sweatheart corporate deals, and they gave the left a great stalking horse in the run up to 2020, and they failed to even get the capacity they wanted!
The outcome of this process is incredibly bad for Amazon. Seemingly what they achieved was a deal with Virginia. Virginia didn't offer the best incentives but Amazon needed to be there for the lobbying opportunities. Their second HQ plan has collapsed in NY and now they have to re-plan their expansion. Meanwhile the process seems to have been tailor made to damage their corporate image and create a movement against corporate welfare. Now this drags on with it being obvious that Amazon can't go to NY now, but they're still getting headlines to remind everyone of how badly they mismanaged this process.
Really? I'd say this reflects more poorly on NYC and their politicians than Amazon. Every other city that bid for HQ2 would have likely received them with open arms.
Companies kinda need to be in NYC if they want access to the talent pool there. So if NYC gains a reputation of being hostile to big tax breaks for companies, that's not going to really change corporate behavior, except in the desired direction.
And as for what individual people who don't live in NYC think about the city, it really doesn't matter. It is and will for the foreseeable future remain the preeminent metropolis in the United States. What someone who lives in St. Louis or Atlanta thinks about it is of no importance.
NY has access to Boston, NYC, Phili, Baltamore, Washington DC, and Richmond talent. At what point does something like Huston, which has access to Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, Baton Rouge, and New Orleans talent become "good enough." Same argument can be made for Chicago or Indianapolis with Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, , Kansas City, Louisville, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Toronto.
Is the Northeast talent really worth that much more than the Texas Triangle+Gulf Coast or the Great Lakes?
Choosing NYC has to be more than JUST talent pool. It's about being close to other businesses, close to wall street, close to trade and immigration. It's about joining a community that dictates a lot onto the rest of the country.
So if NYC gains a reputation of being hostile to big tax breaks for companies, that's not going to really change corporate behavior, except in the desired direction.
Really? Because I'd say this example exactly proves it changes corporate behavior.
Don't forget the US is full of cities that are now shells of their former selfs. I'm sure they never felt they need to be "open for business" either. NYC isn't going away, but it wasn't that long ago it was viewed as a bit of a "crap hole".
Repeating my comment from elsewhere in the thread:
The problem is that Amazon's end of the deal involved a lot of ill-defined promises, and their obvious unwillingness to negotiate was a sign of intent to strongarm the city into further concessions. Even if, on paper, it was a financial loss to have Amazon pull out, it sets a strong and positive precedent for New York and other cities across the country.
The outcome of this process is incredibly bad for Amazon. Seemingly what they achieved was a deal with Virginia. Virginia didn't offer the best incentives but Amazon needed to be there for the lobbying opportunities. Their second HQ plan has collapsed in NY and now they have to re-plan their expansion. Meanwhile the process seems to have been tailor made to damage their corporate image and create a movement against corporate welfare. Now this drags on with it being obvious that Amazon can't go to NY now, but they're still getting headlines to remind everyone of how badly they mismanaged this process.