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?
Related Stories
Amazon will invest $5 billion in a second headquarters in a North American city outside of Seattle.
Amazon.com Inc. already has a sprawling Seattle headquarters that attests to its size and ambition. Now the world's largest online retailer plans to open a second North American campus -- dubbed HQ2 -- that Amazon says could be just as big as the existing one.
The company is asking local and state governments to submit proposals for a development that will likely cost more than $5 billion over the next 15 to 17 years and give the winning city or town an enormous economic boost. Amazon is already one of the biggest employers in Seattle and expects the new headquarters to house as many as 50,000 workers, many of them new hires. Cities have until next month to apply through a special website, and the company said it will make a final decision next year.
The mayor of Memphis, Tennessee, quickly expressed interest. So did officials in Chicago; Philadelphia; Hartford, Connecticut; Tulsa, Oklahoma; St. Louis; and Rhode Island, demonstrating that Amazon will wield a lot of leverage in making its choice.
"We expect HQ2 to be a full equal to our Seattle headquarters," founder and Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos said in a statement. "Amazon HQ2 will bring billions of dollars in up-front and ongoing investments, and tens of thousands of high-paying jobs."
Will the new HQ be in the U.S.?
Additional coverage at Reuters, NPR, Business Wire and The Washington Post
Cities Dream Of Landing Amazon's New HQ And They're Going To Great Lengths To Show It
Officials in Tucson, Ariz., uprooted a 21-foot-tall saguaro cactus and tried to have it delivered to Amazon's Seattle headquarters. Birmingham constructed giant Amazon boxes and placed them around the Alabama city. In Missouri, Kansas City's mayor bought a thousand items online from Amazon and posted reviews of each one.
All of these cities are clearly trying hard to get Amazon's attention. Why? Because they know that otherwise, they don't stand a chance against some big-name cities that are all trying to win the contest to land Amazon's second headquarters.
The retail giant announced a month ago that it has plans for a second home outside of Seattle, where it is currently headquartered. The project has been named HQ2, and the deadline for final bids is Thursday. Amazon has promised to invest $5 billion and said the facility will create as many as 50,000 jobs.
It has led to a mad scramble from cities across the nation and even in Canada. And various publications have analyzed cities' chances of landing this deal. Atlanta, Denver and Pittsburgh have made it to a few of those lists.
Many cities don't really figure as finalists on any of those lists. But that hasn't stopped them. In fact, just like Tucson or Birmingham, cities are pulling out all the stops to get noticed.
The Amazonk Prometheans may be coming to your city...
Previously: Amazon Spheres Add to Seattle's Quirky Architecture
Amazon Acquires Whole Foods for $13.7 Billion
Amazon to Invest $5 Billion in Second HQ Outside of Seattle
Amazon Looks to New Food Technology for Home Delivery
'A Major Distraction': Is A Megadeal Like Amazon's HQ2 Always Worth It?
Thursday marks the deadline for bids in Amazon's highly publicized search for the location of its second headquarters, dubbed HQ2. Cities are clamoring to land the conglomerate's project and its unparalleled promise of up to 50,000 jobs paying an average of $100,000, at one of the world's fastest-growing companies.
But with that comes some public soul-searching: How much should a city or state subsidize a wealthy American corporation in exchange for such a shiny promise? [...] Financial incentives are among numerous criteria Amazon included in its solicitation of bids. [...] By multiple estimates, Amazon has already cashed in on more than $1 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies and incentives for its warehouses, data centers and other operations.
[...] "I often thought, as governor, it would be sort of nice, if all the governors just got together and said, 'Look, we're just not going to play this anymore,' " says former Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle. Doyle was at the helm during the financial crisis in 2008, when General Motors shuttered plants, including a factory in Janesville, Wis. But later, the automaker said it would reopen one location, bringing back the jobs. Wisconsin put together its largest incentive package yet — Doyle says he felt an obligation to — but it lost to Michigan's even bigger offer. [...] Since then, Wisconsin has become infamous for its eye-popping $3-billion financial incentive to get a Foxconn liquid-crystal display plant.
Previously: Amazon to Invest $5 Billion in Second HQ Outside of Seattle
Cities Desperate to Become the Location of Amazon's "Second Headquarters"
Microsoft to Expand Campus, as Amazon Looks Elsewhere
While Amazon is hunting for a second headquarters away from its hometown, its neighbor in the Seattle area — Microsoft — is doubling down on the region, with plans to invest billions of dollars in redeveloping its existing campus.
The project, which Microsoft plans to announce at its annual meeting of shareholders on Wednesday, amounts to a major overhaul of the company's 500-acre campus in Redmond, Wash., the leafy Seattle suburb that it has called home since 1986.
The company will take a wrecking ball to 12 old buildings, replacing them with 18 taller ones with more open work environments. The construction will add about 2.5 million square feet of new space to the roughly 15 million it has in the area, enough room for an additional 8,000 employees.
Microsoft's redevelopment, which will take five to seven years to complete, would not ordinarily stand out — lots of technology companies outgrow their offices and need new space. But this is Microsoft, a company that spent years fumbling new initiatives, laying off employees and retrenching from key markets. The bet on a bigger, more modern campus is a symbol of its resurgence over the past few years under its chief executive, Satya Nadella, who has made invigorating Microsoft's culture one of his top priorities.
It is also hard not to notice the contrast to Amazon, the area's younger and buzzier technology company. After Amazon announced its plans for a second headquarters, cities and regions laid out tax breaks and other promises to lure the planned 50,000 high-paying jobs to town.
Also at VentureBeat and The Verge.
Related: Cities Desperate to Become the Location of Amazon's "Second Headquarters"
Is A Mega-Deal Like Amazon's HQ2 Always Worth It?
Amazon Receives 238 Proposals for HQ2, Including Multi-Billion Dollar Incentive Offers
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @02:23PM (4 children)
Race to the bottom my pretties.
LOL at Chicago offering tax incentives. Those fucking sons of bitches. That whole state is a corrupt shithole. People are fleeing it in droves because the burden on tax payers is INSANE, and instead of getting a handle on it they just double down and spread even more burden onto the smaller and smaller tax-paying population. And of course in second place my shithole of New Jersey.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @02:46PM (3 children)
Not everyone in the race is begging [thestar.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday October 24 2017, @04:31PM (1 child)
Heard on the radio this morning that Fresno is also offering nothing.
It's a wise move for Fresno not to waste money preparing a fancy offer.
Some places making offers just don't stand a chance, unless they're offering $30 billion in cash...
The main criteria besides "gimme tax breaks" is a major metropolitan area with an international airport, and presumably an attractive place to live. What's the percentage of those 238 bids which fit those criteria, 2% ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @05:10PM
Certainly not Fresno, though I guess it is close enough to decent places to live!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @07:16PM
Yeah, San Antonio dropped it's bid with the mayor stating "Blindly giving away the farm isn't our style".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday October 24 2017, @02:56PM (5 children)
Note: Consider moving to Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont or Wyoming. They seem to be places that might potentially have a modicum of sanity.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday October 24 2017, @05:03PM (4 children)
Note: Consider moving to Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont or Wyoming. They seem to be places that might potentially have a modicum of sanity.
Hawaii is very, very nice, but it's not sane at all, if you're looking at the cost of living. It's one of the most expensive places in the US to live. There also aren't that many jobs there.
Montana and Wyoming are cheap, but there's no work there. Wyoming has a pitiful 500k people in the whole state, which geographically is pretty large. A cheap cost-of-living isn't much help unless you're living on savings, or you have an internet business or something.
North and South Dakota are similarly unpopulated, but worse, NDak in particular is ridiculously cold. You might as well move to Siberia.
Vermont is small and rural. Again, not many jobs. At least it isn't so far from everything. Arkansas is full of farms; again, no jobs.
There's a good reason these places aren't top picks for a giant corporate HQ: there just isn't much infrastructure or urbanization there to support it.
That said, there's something really wrong in this country when localities or states are offering huge tax incentives to a corporation to build there. Taxes shouldn't have any favoritism for any particular person or company. Progressive tax brackets are OK, but only because *everyone* is subject to them; making exceptions or loopholes for anyone in particular is wrong, and should be illegal.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 24 2017, @05:47PM (3 children)
Unemployment rates in each of the states under discussion:
Hawaii: 2.5%
Montana: 3.9%
Wyoming: 4.0%
North Dakota: 2.4%
South Dakota: 3.4%
Vermont: 2.9%
Arkansas: 3.5%
Now, that's not industry-specific numbers, but the claim that there are "no jobs" in these states seems to be questionable when they're all below the national average.
And I can't speak for the other states, but I've spent a lot of time in Vermont and know quite a few Vermonters, and the idea that it's some sort of wasteland couldn't be further from the truth. One reason they're likely to have not put in a bid is that their government has approximately zero reason to grovel before Amazon. Their cities and towns are generally quite lovely and have the businesses they need and want, thank you very much. Also worth mentioning is that poverty rates are quite low overall outside of the area known as the "northeast kingdom" very close to the borders with Canada and New Hampshire, and even there it's not too bad. Or, you can take as a basic indication that when New Yorkers want to get away for a week, they often go to Vermont.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @07:07PM
There are 4 qualifications in no particular order.
1) decent sized city 1M plus
2) decent sized airport already there
3) decent supply of tech schools
4) tax incentives
My top picks are Boston, Denver, Chicago, Austin, Minneapolis, with distant maybes of Raleigh, Atlanta or Vegas. Basically former IBM research sites. As IBM has basically bailed out and turned itself into a consulting company.
That list you have probably will not be close because of the very reasons the gp said. Lack of tech people and schools. Seattle had a home grown one of former microsofties. Amazon is boxed in by Seattle. It has been obvious for a couple of years now. That would be one reason to cross Boston and Chicago off. They are already 'full' as it were. You need a city area that can handle 120-200k more people (not just the 50k workers).
My second guess is by the time the paint is just getting dry on the walls of the new building they move again.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @07:14PM (1 child)
Not to belittle your basic point, but since Slick Willie changed the way that "unemployed" people are counted (especially in a depression that has lasted for a decade), the "unemployment rate" has become yet another useless gov't number. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [shadowstats.com]
The Labor Non-Participation Rate is what used to be called the Unemployment Rate and is much more useful.
The "new and improved" method doesn't even get the trend correct. [shadowstats.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @09:01PM
I guess the only goal is to keep the graft train running as long as possible, the fact that an ever increasing number of citizens realize what is going on seems to not matter. I mean really, who fucks with unemployment stats just to keep people pacified? It is only kicking the problem down the road which inevitably makes it so much worse.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @04:55PM (10 children)
Amazon's 2nd HQ could have "up to 50,000 employees." Let's make the huge assumption that's actually true.
$5,000,000,000/50,000 employees = $100,000 per "job created."
And keep in mind that that many of those jobs will be for people like janitors.
Okay, you can make the argument that it's a long-term investment for community development, and it's a one-time cost for future revenue. Even so... that seems like a steep price to pay, especially as Amazon can always threaten to move and re-negotiate after a few years.
I can think of a lot of other good things that could be done with $100,000, including but not limited to simply giving it out to people as cash for them to spend as they choose.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @05:43PM
Not sure. I'm never certain if the belief I have that the idiots who think throwing money at corporations is a good way to build a community are idiots is evidence of foolishness on my part.
I'd guess the nature of the laundering is quid-pro-quo where the politician gives the corporation taxpayers' money so that the corporation can sponsor the politician in next year's politicsball playoffs. <sarcasm>Also, tickets to speeches by retired politicians are really expensive from what I understand, so CxOs need the help to afford to be able to listen to retired politicians' words of gold.</sarcasm> (Well, certainly their words are go£d€n for $omebody.)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 24 2017, @05:54PM (8 children)
What?!?! You can't help poor people out by giving them cash! Why, they'll only spend it irresponsibly on food and clothing and utilities and rent, and the next thing you know the world will collapse! If you give it to Jeff Bezos instead, he'll be much more responsible and buy a new yacht.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @06:52PM (7 children)
Why, they'll only spend it irresponsibly on food and clothing and utilities and rent
Let me regale you the tale of T. T had a car accident with her son. Spine bent up face half ripped off. Pretty nasty with months of therapy. Some dude had run a red light and splattered their car. They offer her 15,000 dollars. A life changing amount for T. She gets 200-300 dollars a month for section 8, another 200 or so for utilities, and about 300 for food in stamps, and another 300 from SS, all paid through entailment programs and social security. That 15,000 she took it. It lasted an entire 3 weeks. 200 dollar dinners. Rocking nike sneakers. New flat screen TVs. etc,etc, etc. Week 4? They were asking money to cover their cell phones bills (in addition to the 'bmama phone'). This is not uncommon.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only Jeff Bezos will 'waste' that money. That is not even remotely true. Both groups will.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @07:22PM (2 children)
Yeah. A lot of refugees from hurricane Katrina moved to my city. I was in Walmart one day and someone stopped me randomly (like I was an employee or something) to ask if a stereo system was good for her kids and that she was buying one for each kid with her "hurricane money from the government" and then told me "I also bought a big screen TV and put it on the back porch". Yeah, not wasting that relief money at all...
But, despite that, you can't use bad apples as an example of the entire group. Every group is going to have good people and bad people, smart people and dumb people. It's inevitable in any group, but in some situations (such as wasting tax money that you and I pay), the worst stand out much more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @08:05PM (1 child)
Poor people are poor because they are stupid, or stupid people are stupid because they are poor? Something tells me it's former more so than ladder, but probably a little bit of ladder sprinkled in just to make it probable enough for libtards to runaway with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @10:45PM
Or because they are very unfortunate or lack ambition (could be a mental health issue in some cases). I agree that most people don't seem to know how to spend their money wisely, however. Even when they aren't buying insanely expensive items that they should not buy, they spend a 'little bit' here and there and think nothing of it until their money is simply gone.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday October 24 2017, @10:23PM (3 children)
Some times that kind of behaviour is rational.
Someone who currently receives public assistance gets a lump sum of money. The public assistance stops. So, they can either:
1. Live like they did before, spending the lump sum instead of the public assistance, or
2. They can have a great time for a short while until their bank account is depleted and the public assistance kicks in again.
Which is the logical choice?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @10:47PM (2 children)
The logical choice would be to spend the money on things that are actually important instead of being stupidly wasteful. You know, things like debts and important bills.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:22AM
Like the $100+ cellphone and cable bills?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:56PM
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @06:33PM
"Oh Mr. Bezos! Please let me service your micro-junk! Put it right in my mouth! Oh, yes! That's it!" *slobber, slurp, slobber, gulp* "Aaaaah! Delicious!"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by boxfetish on Tuesday October 24 2017, @06:40PM
Too bad, that piece of human garbage, Scott Walker (and the other human waste in the WI Assembly and Senate) couldn't have somehow negotiated for Amazon's HQ2 to come to a Milwaukee suburb instead of the absolutely terrible monstrosity of a deal they actually made with Foxconn instead. What is it, 3 billion in incentives for about 4 times less jobs than Amazon will bring? Oh, and also the benefit that a horrible polluter like Foxconn gets to ignore any and all environmental concerns. "Welcome to Wississippi. Home of the teatarded Cheesebilly!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @07:36PM
Checking the local Topix pages, I've seen that some MBA types in Long Beach (L.A. County) and Huntington Beach (Orange County) think this is a great idea for the area.
Never mind that affordable housing is already in a crunch hereabouts.
Now, if they hire only folks who are already locals, SCORE!
...and any tax breaks|whatever should obviously be pegged to ACTUALLY CREATING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF JOBS STATED, within, say, 2 years.
The promised support needs to be contingent on|prorated according to their follow-through.
Perhaps even make the derating curve non-linear.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @07:46PM
All western NY State, Buffalo, Niagara Falls and Rochester bid together. No idea what they offered as details, but I suggested to a few people that they mention the Niagara Falls Airport -- former Bell Aircraft field. Nice long runway and the only users are a small Air Guard base, some charters and general aviation. They could rename it Amazon Airport and make their own hub. Plenty of empty space and parking at the old Bell Plant for offices, vacant land nearby and a freeway within a mile.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday October 24 2017, @07:55PM (2 children)
I am not going to play the absurd tax increases to get Amazon in my city. Especially when there will be absolutely no benefit to me. Any high paying tech jobs will just be important.
Well maybe one benefit. Housing prices will skyrocket, so when I sell my house to get out of this shithole I will make some good money.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:00AM (1 child)
> ..so when I sell my house to get out of this shithole I will make some good money.
The way the "tax cut" is looking lately, you will be taxed on the capital gains you make on your house sale...and will net next-to-nothing beyond your basis (original price).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:39PM
Yeah. With Trump (a real estate guy who has used real estate-friendly elements of the tax laws to enrich himself[1]), this is a classic case of the Republican mantra: "I've got mine; screw you".
[1] I've mentioned Trump biographer and tax expert David Cay Johnston before.
He indicates that "shady" doesn't half-cover the way Trump has abused the law and believes that Trump should be in prison.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]