OT*-Who do you think should get the Amazon headquarters? - Page 4

Idris Icabod · #46 10-21-2017, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobO

We've got it locked up,... we sent them a cactus, who could say no to that?

I wish. They returned the cactus.

Ken Robb · #47 10-21-2017, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idris Icabod

I wish. They returned the cactus.

I guess you're stuck with it.

MikeD · #48 10-21-2017, 05:22 PM

I'd be surprised if California gets it. High taxes and cost of living, awful traffic, and a business unfriendly leftist government.

Ken Robb · #49 10-21-2017, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeD

I'd be surprised if California gets it. High taxes and cost of living, awful traffic, and a business unfriendly leftist government.

That's us!

FlashUNC · #50 10-21-2017, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeD

I'd be surprised if California gets it. High taxes and cost of living, awful traffic, and a business unfriendly leftist government.

So business unfriendly we're the sixth largest economy in the world, all by ourselves.

MikeD · #51 10-21-2017, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

So business unfriendly we're the sixth largest economy in the world, all by ourselves.

Climate, geography, ocean access, Silicon Valley, aerospace and defense industry, all in spite of the business unfriendly state government.

Oh, and I forgot the real estate industry driving the economy too, as if that helps the average citizen that has to rent or buy a home here.

FlashUNC · #52 10-21-2017, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeD

Climate, geography, ocean access, Silicon Valley, aerospace and defense industry, all in spite of the business unfriendly state government.

FastforaSlowGuy · #53 10-21-2017, 06:30 PM

Boston isn't saying "no tax breaks", they're just saying "show us what you're bringing to the table and then we'll talk about tax incentives ". Also, I think Suffolk Downs would be an awful site.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gasman · #54 10-21-2017, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeD

I'd be surprised if California gets it. a business unfriendly leftist government.

OK guys lets keep politics out of it.

Thanks

josephr · #55 10-21-2017, 08:16 PM

It'll be east of the Mississippi for sure...even though my city (Birmingham) is in the running, I really hope we don't get it as I like Amazon too much and the last thing I want to see is a bunch of douchebag politicians puffing out their chests and talking about how great they are for woo-ing Amazon when in reality they've sold the house for free, threw in the children, and promised to mow the yard for eternity.

It'll be someplace with some regional centrality to it, access to interstates and rail, and somewhere technical poeple want to raise a family without getting obliterated by a hurricane every other year. Probably Richmond, VA or Northwest Indiana.

bikinchris · #56 10-21-2017, 08:33 PM

Someone told me today it would be Detroit. It would revive a once thriving city.

My personal sentimental wish would be Little Rock. Centrally located with a good quality of life.

Doug Fattic · #57 10-21-2017, 08:46 PM

I've heard it said that big companies know well in advance where they want their new business to be. They just use approaching other cities as negotiating leverage to get tax advantages where they wanted to be all along.

likebikes · #58 10-22-2017, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1centaur

Re: Boston - that race track is on a very busy commuting road which would be horrendous if an Amazon HQ were located there. Also, not a nice location for the workers.

freaking seriously.

do they seriously think the 50k amazon workers are going to take 1a or ride the blue line to work? ****ing LOL.

bikinchris · #59 10-22-2017, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by likebikes

freaking seriously.

do they seriously think the 50k amazon workers are going to take 1a or ride the blue line to work? ****ing LOL.

No, they think the vast majority would live on the rather large site.

Ken Robb · #60 10-22-2017, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bikinchris

No, they think the vast majority would live on the rather large site.

This always sounds good but it hasn't worked in San Diego. I was a real estate broker for 36 years and the hardest thing to get buyers to consider was the ease or difficulty of their commutes. When downtown San Diego started to get new high-rise condos and apartments it was expected that they would be occupied by people who worked downtown and wanted to be near work. At the same time we got new offices in the northern suburbs. Many of the downtown residents now live there to be near the Gas Lamp District with all its bars and restaurants but they work up north. Our rush hour used to be from the suburbs to downtown in the morning and from downtown to the suburbs in the evening. Now it is largely reversed with more traffic in the morning OUT of downtown. There is still a traffic increase TO downtown in the morning but its not as heavy as the northbound flow.

I'm retired so I just avoid driving weekdays 6-10am and 3:30-6:30pm and when I worked I lived 2-3 miles from my office. We are getting an extension of our Trolley System and there will be a station 2 blocks from my home. Needless to say quite a few of my neighbors were against this project especially those whose homes front the tracks. I think that's silly because the tracks will run alongside I-5 and I doubt anyone will hear the trolley over the steady hum/roar of the freeway. The new trolley line will enable us to get almost anywhere I would want to go while leaving my car in the garage.