Really had no idea that unions in NY were the strongest opponents of the Amazon facility, and which lead them to pull out. For those scoring at home, these “champions of the working man” cost NY some $27B (BILLION!) in revenue and some 25-40k new jobs for working-class New Yorkers. I don’t want to paint with a broad brush here, but every Union is a bunch of jack-booted, lying, thieving, dip-shitted, shit-kicking dumb [uck fay]s - as is anyone who supports, participates or endorses them, and without a singular exception. Read this, from New York’s Budget Director. And then this: Inexcusable. Link: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/op...udget-director-robert-mujica-regarding-amazon
Not to hijack, but I’m not sure this has been touched on elsewhere. AOC basically said that the money they weren’t giving Amazon could be used elsewhere. Her and apparently a large percentage of Americans think that a tax break involves a municipality giving a big pile of money to a corporation. The relative merits of those kinds of deals notwithstanding, the stupidity there is just astounding.
hey if you want Amazon offices, let them know. it will hurt me, living in Arlington. I am not going to chase them off, but I will hold the politicians who gave them massive tax breaks accountable. they're picking winners, we have many local businesses that could have been also helped with tax relief that are here already. the workers will mostly be from out of the area and new. the cost of property and rent will rise. traffic will increase. the benefits of Amazon services will stay the same. Nah, it ain't a sweetheart deal.
imagine how transformational amazon offices would be in a small or medium rust belt city. putting them in ny or DC and waiving billions in taxes is giving away the cow for free. if they want cheap, locate somewhere cheap. if they want in on a big city's infrastructure, pay full price. this isn't socialism, this is not being a sucker.
haven't seen any crying about it. it was the last affordable rent in the city. with amazon there, NYC becomes San fran
Both places could relax a lot of their costly building codes and hoops you have to jump for on housing to bring down that cost if they wanted.
I'm all for strong building codes, especially in places that tend to have earthquakes. There's a lot of bullshit in a lot of places that can be cut that significantly reduces building and upkeep costs in a lot of places that have nothing to do with the integrity of the building. This isn't directed at San Francisco, just a general statement on a lot of places I work.
One being a meter on dedicated sprinkler water lines. Some municipalities call for a $1,300 (at most) radio read meter on a 5/8ths by pass line on the backflow device, other municipalities call for a 6" meter in a vault, which costs between $40,000 to $60,000 to buy and install. Both do what you want, but one is astronomically higher than the other. It also has nothing to do with the building itself.
I caught the Ron Swanson paraphrase, Teny. Said the actual quote just the other day when dealing with a contractor.
Friend of mine bought a building that was used as a day center for patients with dementia / Alzheimer’s. He was converting it into office space. Called backflow people in to recert sprinklers, backflow valve, etc. Backflow people called Fire Marshall - first - said that the regs had changed since the building last sold, and that in changing the intended use of the building - again, from alzheimer’s patients to office workers - that he agreed with their assessment that the whole system had to be replaced so as to go from something like 2” to 3” (IIRC, it was something like that) throughout the building. I can’t recall the specifics, but if viewed on paper, it didn’t at all look like some monumental change in pipe size, like going from 1” pipe to 6” pipe. But because of the new and larger pipe volume of the new sprinkler system inside, the waterline to the building also had to be similarly increased. The best part was when they told him that the water main was directly under his parking lot, so he either had to pay extra to do some tunneling under it, or also pay for a new parking lot, too. Paid $1.7M for the building, and right at $1M to replace the whole sprinkler system, from the water main going into the building, all the way to the sprinkler heads. This goes without mentioning the several weeks it delayed renovations and renting out the space (read: making money), while the work was being performed. I’m sure there’s a great many and good reasons for the change, and that someone like IP or TennTra (smart science-y types) could easily explain the necessity of the changes, but still, it’s hard to see the logic in a system that was sufficient if used to continue protecting Alzheimer’s patients, but wasn’t good enough for office workers. P.S. - No, my friend did not use the original company he called in to do the back flow check, and who first called the Fire Marshall, before calling my friend. He’d have bulldozed the damn thing and turned it into a turnip farm, before paying them.
I assume it has to do with the volume of water per unit of time required. as time goes on, the amount required has perhaps increased due to lessons learned from fires. that a new permit was being issued due to renovations is what triggered the requirement for an upgrade.
and the variation between municipalities may be due to different water suppliers with different pressures and thus different needs. I worked on sprinkler systems for awhile, stuff just blows up even if it held for years sometimes if corners are cut.
