Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 24 2017, @01:40PM   Printer-friendly
from the will-they-even-break-even? dept.

October 19th was the deadline to submit bids to become the host city for Amazon's second headquarters. 238 proposals were submitted:

Amazon.com Inc's $5 billion second headquarters and its promise of up to 50,000 jobs attracted 238 proposals from 54 states, provinces and districts in the United States, Canada and Mexico, the company said on Monday.

Regions and cities in 43 U.S. states from Maine to Alaska, as well as Washington, D.C., submitted bids by the Oct. 19 deadline, Amazon said. The states that did not bid were Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.

Canadian bids came from the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec. Mexican bids emanated from the states of Chihuahua, Hidalgo and Queretaro. Other bidders included Puerto Rico, which is struggling to recover from Hurricane Maria and is in the process of restructuring its sagging finances in court.

Details of the bids, including tax breaks and other incentives being offered to entice the internet retailer, were scarce as some bidders cited competitive reasons or nondisclosure policies.

New Jersey offered $7 billion in tax credits for a Newark headquarters, while Chicago offered $2.25 billion of incentives, including tax credits, property tax breaks, $450 million in infrastructure improvements, $250 million in "Neighborhood Opportunity Funds", and potentially free land. The mayor of Stonecrest, an Atlanta suburb, offered 345 acres of industrial land on which a new city called Amazon could be built, with Jeff Bezos as mayor-for-life.

Also at First Post, NYT, and the Chicago Tribune.

Previously: Amazon to Invest $5 Billion in Second HQ Outside of Seattle
Cities Desperate to Become the Location of Amazon's "Second Headquarters"
Is A Mega-Deal Like Amazon's HQ2 Always Worth It?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:56PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:56PM (#587423) Journal

    In that kind of situation, paying off debts might not be much better than just setting the money on fire.

    You start out on public assistance and in debt, and once the money's gone you're right back on assistance and in debt. What good is paying the debt? You'll just have more debt tomorrow. It's not going to improve your already trashed credit rating. It's not going to make the collectors stop calling. At best you'll pay down a credit card so you can load it up again, but that's not much different from just buying whatever you'd buy directly. If you're already expecting to die in debt, then there's no point in ever attempting to pay it off -- it might as well be infinite. And there's not much point in saving either, as those savings are likely to be confiscated to cover the "infinite" debt.

    They bought things they would never otherwise be able to get that they thought would improve their life for some reasonable length of time. That sounds perfectly logical to me.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2