Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugggh. You remind me of the excellent candidates who telephone obsessively to demand how they "came up short" when they were not selected. It's not a failure. Someone/Some place had to be chosen.

Yet you care enough to open the thread and post a comment. Losing doesn't equate to failure. But make no mistake, Montgomery County/MD lost this bid to a local competitor, and if that doesn't concern you in the least then stay content.

In my opinion, Montgomery County won.

And this is how the ostrich buries it’s head in the sand.

No. It means that $8.5 billion for Amazon would have been a terribly wasteful use of public money.

Or perhaps more aptly, the grapes are too sour.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugggh. You remind me of the excellent candidates who telephone obsessively to demand how they "came up short" when they were not selected. It's not a failure. Someone/Some place had to be chosen.

Yet you care enough to open the thread and post a comment. Losing doesn't equate to failure. But make no mistake, Montgomery County/MD lost this bid to a local competitor, and if that doesn't concern you in the least then stay content.

In my opinion, Montgomery County won.

And this is how the ostrich buries it’s head in the sand.

No. It means that $8.5 billion for Amazon would have been a terribly wasteful use of public money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugggh. You remind me of the excellent candidates who telephone obsessively to demand how they "came up short" when they were not selected. It's not a failure. Someone/Some place had to be chosen.

Yet you care enough to open the thread and post a comment. Losing doesn't equate to failure. But make no mistake, Montgomery County/MD lost this bid to a local competitor, and if that doesn't concern you in the least then stay content.

In my opinion, Montgomery County won.

And this is how the ostrich buries it’s head in the sand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugggh. You remind me of the excellent candidates who telephone obsessively to demand how they "came up short" when they were not selected. It's not a failure. Someone/Some place had to be chosen.

Yet you care enough to open the thread and post a comment. Losing doesn't equate to failure. But make no mistake, Montgomery County/MD lost this bid to a local competitor, and if that doesn't concern you in the least then stay content.

In my opinion, Montgomery County won.

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't MD or, for that matter, DC, land HQ2? Political risk.

Part of the impetus to expand out of Seattle for Amazon was the threat of populist policies like Seattle's tax on employee headcount to fund homeless services. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/12/seattle-backs-off-tax-to-help-homeless-after-amazon-business-groups-mount-fierce-opposition/?utm_term=.c26b41d5ade4

I can see DC or MD politicians pushing for things like this and use the foil of "subsidies" to Amazon should they have landed HQ2. I don't see VA or even Arlington politicians getting behind something like this though. In general, DC and MD Democrats overestimate the political and policy benefits of social spending and underestimate the economic and fiscal cost. VA Democrats are much more level headed.

I think Muriel Bowser and Larry Hogan actually get this. In the case of Bowser, I think part of her push to have Dionne Reeder voted into the DC Council was to demonstrate that she can punish DC Councilmembers like Elissa Silverman that back new creative social spending ideas like paid maternity leave.

In general, social spending that tries to tackle national problems should be dealt with at the national level IMO. If not, then those jurisdictions like DC and MD that try to solve national problems with local measures will saddle themselves with a fiscal problem and disadvantage their competitiveness for business.

I say this all as a pro-business Democrat.

This!!

Anonymous wrote:Ugggh. You remind me of the excellent candidates who telephone obsessively to demand how they "came up short" when they were not selected. It's not a failure. Someone/Some place had to be chosen.

Yet you care enough to open the thread and post a comment. Losing doesn't equate to failure. But make no mistake, Montgomery County/MD lost this bid to a local competitor, and if that doesn't concern you in the least then stay content.

"You're right. Baltimore made the top 20, right? You all are foolish to think that CC didn't have this from the beginning. Article after article talks about how CC had this all along because of what? Location, Location, Location. Next to 2 metro stops, 15 minutes from Jeff B's mansion, a skip to National Airport, readily available space.. Never mind the huge Pentagon contract that it's trying to win. Amazon fooled the 200+ cities thinking that they had an actual chance. What was surprising was the HQ2 split with NY. That's the only surprise here, although Bezoz has a place nearby there too. Hey, I voted for Blair and then Floreen and was disappointed that uber liberal Elrich won the County Exec. but after studying up more on him, he is actually a very sensible guy. We need to work on the infrastructure to make sure that we attract businesses here in the first place. We can't just allow developers to build and build only to leave us with more congested roads and overcrowded schools. There has to be a balance. You should read up more on him and what he plans to do. The County Council has also stated very specifically that their number 1 goal is the economy and figuring out how to get additional businesses here- they know the reality. Let's not open up thread after thread here in DCUM bashing Mont County though and painting this gloom and doom picture that we're all living in dire poverty."

+1

Actually, the big thing I have learned from this thread is that despite such an amazing location (even for businesses not needing access to B's mansion) and having 2 metro stops conveniently located, CC STILL HAS LOTS OF EMPTY BUILDINGS. From reading the rest of DCUM, it seemed like there were no empty building in NOVA.

Personally I’m glad Amazon didn’t come to Maryland. The traffic is already horrendous and the roads are overburdened.

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't MD or, for that matter, DC, land HQ2? Political risk.

Part of the impetus to expand out of Seattle for Amazon was the threat of populist policies like Seattle's tax on employee headcount to fund homeless services. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/12/seattle-backs-off-tax-to-help-homeless-after-amazon-business-groups-mount-fierce-opposition/?utm_term=.c26b41d5ade4

I can see DC or MD politicians pushing for things like this and use the foil of "subsidies" to Amazon should they have landed HQ2. I don't see VA or even Arlington politicians getting behind something like this though. In general, DC and MD Democrats overestimate the political and policy benefits of social spending and underestimate the economic and fiscal cost. VA Democrats are much more level headed.

I think Muriel Bowser and Larry Hogan actually get this. In the case of Bowser, I think part of her push to have Dionne Reeder voted into the DC Council was to demonstrate that she can punish DC Councilmembers like Elissa Silverman that back new creative social spending ideas like paid maternity leave.

In general, social spending that tries to tackle national problems should be dealt with at the national level IMO. If not, then those jurisdictions like DC and MD that try to solve national problems with local measures will saddle themselves with a fiscal problem and disadvantage their competitiveness for business.

I say this all as a pro-business Democrat.

Please. What is a pro-business Democrat but somebody who promises to shake down business less than his more mob-like comrades to his left howling for blood?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s montgomery county VOTERS who need to have the ‘come to Jesus’ moment. We are absolute idiots and vote in people that just spend spend spend and who have created a huge welfare state in ourcounty and just tax residents to pay for it.

Baltimore, afterall , has a huge new amazon warehouse so it’s not like Maryland has a problem it’s moco.

You're right. Baltimore made the top 20, right? You all are foolish to think that CC didn't have this from the beginning. Article after article talks about how CC had this all along because of what? Location, Location, Location. Next to 2 metro stops, 15 minutes from Jeff B's mansion, a skip to National Airport, readily available space.. Never mind the huge Pentagon contract that it's trying to win. Amazon fooled the 200+ cities thinking that they had an actual chance. What was surprising was the HQ2 split with NY. That's the only surprise here, although Bezoz has a place nearby there too. Hey, I voted for Blair and then Floreen and was disappointed that uber liberal Elrich won the County Exec. but after studying up more on him, he is actually a very sensible guy. We need to work on the infrastructure to make sure that we attract businesses here in the first place. We can't just allow developers to build and build only to leave us with more congested roads and overcrowded schools. There has to be a balance. You should read up more on him and what he plans to do. The County Council has also stated very specifically that their number 1 goal is the economy and figuring out how to get additional businesses here- they know the reality. Let's not open up thread after thread here in DCUM bashing Mont County though and painting this gloom and doom picture that we're all living in dire poverty.

MD didn't have lots to offer Amazon that were as central as CC. But DC did. For example, the NOMA/Union Station location DC pitched was more central from a transit perspective and literally across the street from Congress. Nevertheless, DC didn't land HQ2, probably because of its far-left politics, still heavily influenced by Marion Barry.

Why didn't MD or, for that matter, DC, land HQ2? Political risk.

Part of the impetus to expand out of Seattle for Amazon was the threat of populist policies like Seattle's tax on employee headcount to fund homeless services. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/12/seattle-backs-off-tax-to-help-homeless-after-amazon-business-groups-mount-fierce-opposition/?utm_term=.c26b41d5ade4

I can see DC or MD politicians pushing for things like this and use the foil of "subsidies" to Amazon should they have landed HQ2. I don't see VA or even Arlington politicians getting behind something like this though. In general, DC and MD Democrats overestimate the political and policy benefits of social spending and underestimate the economic and fiscal cost. VA Democrats are much more level headed.

I think Muriel Bowser and Larry Hogan actually get this. In the case of Bowser, I think part of her push to have Dionne Reeder voted into the DC Council was to demonstrate that she can punish DC Councilmembers like Elissa Silverman that back new creative social spending ideas like paid maternity leave.

In general, social spending that tries to tackle national problems should be dealt with at the national level IMO. If not, then those jurisdictions like DC and MD that try to solve national problems with local measures will saddle themselves with a fiscal problem and disadvantage their competitiveness for business.

I say this all as a pro-business Democrat.

VA knows the Amazon is choosing not to expand in Seattle because of its poor relationship with the city and state right?

While I agree MD should maybe re-evaulate how it attracts company and talent to remain competitive, the state (along with DC) won big with Amazon going to NoVa. Think about all the tax breaks and subsidies VA and NY threw at Amazon. MD and DC get the benefits of the 25,000 jobs without having to spend any money.

There is effectively zero unemployment in Montgomery County. I don’t see the problem.

The reality check for Maryland is that we need to stop offering large, wealthy companies huge incentives to do what they would do anyway without the incentives.