Our Cities, Major Companies and Political Deals
I read an interesting article in the NY Times International edition from February 16-17, 2019 titled " Amazon lets go in New York" by Kevin Rose. " Amazon’s surprise announcement during the week that it was canceling its planned expansion to a new corporate campus in New York... Amazon acted as though its popularity and its early support from key politicians ... would clear a path to political concessions."
He goes on to conclude that " For years, the company succeeded wildly by catering to shoppers, and betting — mostly correctly — that its sterling customer reputation would insulate it from criticism over its labor practices, anti-union resistance and other corporate shortcomings."
Apparently, this attitude did not hold true in NYC. This episode is a case of a large corporation seeking a favorable situation by claiming that their goals and that of a city are in synch. The deal, according to the Intelligencer edition of November 19, 2018, stated "Amazon will be receiving a cash subsidy of approximately $3 billion over at least ten years, through $1.7 billion worth of New York state government grants and tax credits alongside $1.3 billion from the city. The company is, in turn, promising to create 25,000 jobs averaging salaries of $150,000 each, in at least 4 million square feet of real estate.
What all this indicates to me is a new trend we are witnessing whereby major companies are moving into the city making and real estate development through the side door. Rather than the direct path of purchasing land and developing it or rehabbing and repurposing existing buildings or even making pure investment deals, major companies are telling us that they will generously help us building our cities and provide job opportunities and a better life for all. While they may try, in part, to be good neighbors, they never state that their primary goal is to get more than they give. Their interest lies in getting a huge monetary subsidy, tax breaks or access to data that they will be able to use to generate future profits. These moves by the Amazons and Googles of our time require vigilance and analysis on the part of the citizenry as well as politicians, to ensure fairness, transparency, and putting the citizens first for the long haul. City administrations cannot give up control to private companies for the creation of the vision for a city’s development. Politicians must craft the aspirations for the future of our cities and communities with input and acceptance by the citizenry. Only after this can we really tell if the proposals of private companies are in line with the city’s goals. Selling the “crown jewels” of a city (or providing magnanimous subsidies) in the name of short term goals or even medium-term predictions is irresponsible.
Director General Docensas
6 年Martha Thorne I fully agree with your view. From the citizenry, together with economic, political, architects and urbanist leaders, we need to foster a trend that seems to weaken: citizen participation, transparency and a collective vision of our cities.
Innovation in Cities and Learning
6 年Thank you for your review, Martha. It seems to me that Amazon's unexpected decision to cancel its second headquarter deal with New York City, particularly after a 14-month search with over 200 bids and a split verdict, shows the complexity and uncertainty of contemporary city making amidst economic development needs, changing political climate, rising inequalities and local demands. Cities are innovating communities where reinforced collaboration with all stakeholders is needed to achieve sustainable change.