Indy advances to the final 20 in bid to win Amazon's 2nd HQ (Indianapolis: 2015, house)

[IndyDancer]

Personally I think Indy would be a good choice for this, however if the actual decision makers really are hung up on the public transportation aspect, the city has no chance. Unless part of the deal will be to implement some sort of public transit system, which so far has met with incredible resistance, or at least non-support, from the local population such that any proposal is always DOA. The railroad tracks in Fishers are about to become a walking trail.

[sheerbliss]

Originally Posted by Berteau

Then why do so many people live in Chicago, DC, Boston, and NYC where better companies and jobs are also if that is the case? Why is Silicon Valley in San Fran and not Indy? Indy is LAST on the list of 20 as far as odds to get it, so apparently your analysis is flawed. Obviously you live in Indy, so that’s why you’re biased and defending it as the best city.

Your argument against Indianapolis is that there are other cities where people live and work? They're probably from those cities, or have connections there, or got a good job offer. Employees at Amazon are taking their connections and jobs with them. BTW, Chicago's population is shrinking--property taxes are through the roof and the state's finances are a mess. In fact, you can't go a quarter mile in Indy without seeing Illinois license plates. New York City is completely different from Indianapolis, and a company would move to one or the other with very different goals in mind. Locating a low-profit but growing shipping-retail company with a lot of inventory in the Midwest makes more sense than locating it on expensive real estate in the Northeast.

I'm arguing that Indianapolis would be a good choice--I never said it was the best choice since I haven't evaluated all the locations on the list. Our mayor said the proposal focused on quality of life here--and it may have gotten the search committee thinking about whether they wanted to spend two hours a day riding public transportation, half a million dollars on a two-bedroom crackerbox on the West Coast, time and energy dealing with labor unions, or winters in Chicago.

The stumbling block I see is politics. If Amazon is set on lefty politics (even though Marion County is blue), they'll go elsewhere...but elsewhere would likely be a big, costly city.

[indy_317]

I think if they are looking at affordability and enough young people to fill spots, even if they leave, Indy does make sense. Now that I know the old GM plant property is large enough, it is the best option. The train tracks that are right at the plant could easily provide for a higher speed rail line from downtown to our airport making such a rail line cheaper already. It doesn't have to be elevated and it could basically have the right-of-way. In fact, it might be cheaper to build numerous bridges over the rail line than to build an entire elevated line, but I'm not sure.

With Butler, IUPUI, Marian, and Univ. of Indianapolis, that should be plenty of tech people right there. Then add in IU, Purdue, Rose, etc..

I honestly think it will come down to how east do they want to be and the weather. If they want a more moderate climate, I think Nashville or Raleigh wins. If they want a more warmer climate, Texas wins. If they are OK with some snow every so often, it could go to Indy, Pittsburgh, or Columbus. I think the far east coast places don't have a chance.

[Berteau]

Originally Posted by sheerbliss

Your argument against Indianapolis is that there are other cities where people live and work? They're probably from those cities, or have connections there, or got a good job offer. Employees at Amazon are taking their connections and jobs with them. BTW, Chicago's population is shrinking--property taxes are through the roof and the state's finances are a mess. In fact, you can't go a quarter mile in Indy without seeing Illinois license plates. New York City is completely different from Indianapolis, and a company would move to one or the other with very different goals in mind. Locating a low-profit but growing shipping-retail company with a lot of inventory in the Midwest makes more sense than locating it on expensive real estate in the Northeast.

I'm arguing that Indianapolis would be a good choice--I never said it was the best choice since I haven't evaluated all the locations on the list. Our mayor said the proposal focused on quality of life here--and it may have gotten the search committee thinking about whether they wanted to spend two hours a day riding public transportation, half a million dollars on a two-bedroom crackerbox on the West Coast, time and energy dealing with labor unions, or winters in Chicago.

The stumbling block I see is politics. If Amazon is set on lefty politics (even though Marion County is blue), they'll go elsewhere...but elsewhere would likely be a big, costly city.

My argument is that more people live in other cities despite being more expensive and more traffic because other cities are better and more desirable. Even by percentages, Chicago and other large cities have way more out of state transplants than Indy. Everyone knows about Indiana’s brain drain. Only a lifelong Indiana homer would believe the things you and some of the other posters posted and think indy has a legitimate chance.

[indy_317]

Originally Posted by sheerbliss

The stumbling block I see is politics. If Amazon is set on lefty politics (even though Marion County is blue), they'll go elsewhere...but elsewhere would likely be a big, costly city.

When lefty politics finally equals true taxation, most companies will avoid lefty political areas completely. As it stands now, most of the leftist politicians in places like Boston, NYC, and Chicago are raising taxes by pennies when they need $5.00. This is to pay for all the benefits usually supported by the left, mostly though retirement healthcare, generous life time pensions, and other social welfare benefits (combined they add up). It remains to be seen how the finances of big left leaning cities plays out. If Amazon wanted a big city, NYC/Boston would make more sense than Chicago. My guess is that they'd be asking stuff from the city and Chicago is broke, the state is broke, and their bond rating would give me caution (a higher interest rate just means more taxes needed down the road to payback bonds).

[indy_317]

Originally Posted by Berteau

My argument is that more people live in other cities despite being more expensive and more traffic because other cities are better and more desirable. Even by percentages, Chicago and other large cities have way more out of state transplants than Indy. Everyone knows about Indiana’s brain drain. Only a lifelong Indiana homer would believe the things you and some of the other posters posted and think indy has a legitimate chance.

What is considered a brain drain though? I just found out that IU's freshman class is like 45% from out-of-state. So if these kids get degrees and leave, is it that shocking since they weren't from here to begin with? In fact, the college students I know who got degrees from other schools have mostly stayed. One was born here but her family was from NYC and she always wanted the big city feel. I don't know if another one who left was born here or not, but he did at least go to high school in Indiana.

If some of these more popular cities actually taxed their citizens an amount needed to pay for a lot of the social benefits they doll out ($100K/year pensions, for life), many of these young people wouldn't be so quick to go there. Plus, what I'd like to see is how many leave for certain "fun, hip" cities, then end up either moving to the burbs of those areas or move to another mid-sized city once they age out of their 20s/early 30s.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by Berteau

My argument is that more people live in other cities despite being more expensive and more traffic because other cities are better and more desirable. Even by percentages, Chicago and other large cities have way more out of state transplants than Indy. Everyone knows about Indiana’s brain drain. Only a lifelong Indiana homer would believe the things you and some of the other posters posted and think indy has a legitimate chance.

Chicago is a whole different class of city than Indianapolis. Always has been, but that doesn't mean a company like Amazon doesn't see value in Indianapolis. Chicago and Indy are different places, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. San Fransisco is also a class above Indy, but that didn't stop SalesForce from slapping their name to the top of the tallest building in Indianapolis.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by IndyDancer

Personally I think Indy would be a good choice for this, however if the actual decision makers really are hung up on the public transportation aspect, the city has no chance. Unless part of the deal will be to implement some sort of public transit system, which so far has met with incredible resistance, or at least non-support, from the local population such that any proposal is always DOA. The railroad tracks in Fishers are about to become a walking trail.

Indy passed a transit referendum by popular vote in 2016 to fund BRT.

[Berteau]

Originally Posted by Toxic Toast

Chicago is a whole different class of city than Indianapolis. Always has been, but that doesn't mean a company like Amazon doesn't see value in Indianapolis. Chicago and Indy are different places, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. San Fransisco is also a class above Indy, but that didn't stop SalesForce from slapping their name to the top of the tallest building in Indianapolis.

Slapping a name on a building means nothing. It is as you said, only slapping a name on a building. Chase had its name on the building, despite being headquartered in NYC. Additionally, 95% of the country hasn’t heard of sales force. It’s not a big deal. When comparing to other cities it’s a negative compared to better companies they have. Like I said, the only people who are defending Indy are people who live in Indy. No other major city sees Indy as a great city or having a chance with Amazon.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by Berteau

Slapping a name on a building means nothing. It is as you said, only slapping a name on a building. Chase had its name on the building, despite being headquartered in NYC. Additionally, 95% of the country hasn’t heard of sales force. It’s not a big deal. When comparing to other cities it’s a negative compared to better companies they have. Like I said, the only people who are defending Indy are people who live in Indy. No other major city sees Indy as a great city or having a chance with Amazon.

SalesForce is a Fortune 500 company, ranks in the top 20 most admired companies in the world, and their software ubiquitous to anyone working a professional job. They have a large presence in Indianapolis; hence slapping their name on the tallest building downtown.