Gentrification concerns are thus overblown, and our local pols are known for dramatizations like these for political gain (at least on camera/Twitter, less so when it comes to campaign support and backroom lobbying deals).
The controversy is in the tax incentives primarily.
Citing an example of some Berliner NIMBYs is not really helping your argument.
It seems you didn't read my prior comment, some of their elected officials are opposed to Amazon moving in.
> Citing an example of some Berliner NIMBYs is not really helping your argument.
It shows how a community can fight back. Much of the change mega-corps bring to the neighborhoods and cities they set up shop in is not good, current locals definitely have a right to reject.
The opposition to an almost-done deal is almost always louder than the support. Supporters want to keep the status quo, i.e. the deal closing. Opposers want to stop it.
I think this is a good deal. I prefer having Amazon in New York, and I prefer the billions of extra tax dollars they're going to pay New York City and Albany versus potentially losing those dollars to another city, state or country. I'm not making a lot of noise because I think the Mayor and Governor have it handled.
TL; DR I don't think one can assume popular opposition to this deal.
News of this deal conveniently came out right after Cuomo was reelected
I'm happy to pay my taxes for certain uses but am still entitled to complain if my elected officials use tax revenue to fill a room with gold coins and swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck.
Perhaps they like the idea?
Seems better than presuming lack of consent and lack of support based on lack of vocal opposition?