Part 1
The news that Amazon would come up with a second headquarters was met with support and opposition. Support it because the investment by Amazon would translate into employment opportunities for thousands of people. However, the benefits come at a particular cost and may be even more overwhelming. While employment is created, there is a negative impact on the population. Specifically, the city would have to hold a much larger population than it can sustain. In such a scenario, the cost of having shelter decreases as the likelihood of more people lacking shelter rises. In addition to overpopulation, traffic is becoming more problematic. These concerns arise from Amazon’s need for more clarity regarding whether the jobs created are meant for the local people. Hence, the argument in this essay is that such initiatives will face substantial opposition until such a time that local people feel their needs are put into consideration and that the pros outweigh the cons.
The contrasting effects of the new headquarters give insight into whether its establishment would have been ideal. The benefits, on the one hand, are promising. However, the adverse effects appear to be more overwhelming. The expected problems, including overpopulation and higher housing costs, would lead to a menace. Ideally, amazon would also have clarified how local people stand to benefit from the job opportunities. Balancing both sides reveals that Amazon did not follow its plan, which is good.
The issue came with conflict, inviting conflict even as people attempted to adjust. The people of New York usually could be more welcoming when changing their town, so much so that they are known for being among those unable to stand gentrification. Amazon must have had this reality in mind when it conceived its plan. Gentrification is the reality that the more people within a community earn, the higher their cost of living goes. Politicians, activists, and even some associations began questioning what the change meant for the people. When Amazon came up with the plan, community collaboration needed to be more effective. Community engagement would have led to identifying and resolving the concerns so all parties feel fulfilled. Instead, a community committee only ended up discouraging progress instead of coming to a compromise (Lang & Stabrowski, 2020).
While there has been so much focus on the gentrification effects, the chance of benefit for the people of NYCHA’s Queensbridge Houses and LaGuardia Community College students. The people and students from these regions would have access to more jobs if Amazon’s plan were successful. Specifically, Amazon had promised to hire from the neighborhood before the politics spiraled toward its opposition (Lang & Stabrowski, 2020). People would find it easier to earn an income for their families. As for the students, accessing internships and training opportunities with Amazon would be easier. Ideally, schools partner with such big companies, securing opportunities for their learners. In the long run, improving families’ earning levels and living standards would increase their benefits.
The Amazon plan would have been ideal for the city. The establishment by Amazon would come with better infrastructural changes and employment creation. Critics, however, associate the plan with an avoidable struggle regarding housing and overpopulation (Leseur, 2021). With housing prices going up, it is unfair that some established residents would lose their homes, some even becoming homeless. In the long run, low-income families can entirely undergo elimination from the community as it becomes more hospitable for the well-off. Overall, the social inequality that comes with the plan is a significant source of concern. The answer is that Amazon comes with some goodies for the people. At the same time, the bad as critics highlight calls for some second thoughts.
Overall, there may have been some gaps in planning, but the city should have been more considerate on the positive side before deciding to cut ties with the Long Island City (LIC) plan. As per Amazon, the city “made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us” (Leseur, 2021). The fact that the people, politicians, and activists had been given a platform to contribute to the plan through discussions makes this decision hard to process. The community was represented in the plan by “a 45-member Community Advisory Committee to help shape the plan” (Lang & Stabrowski, 2020). Yet there was a suspicious conclusion that the community advisory committee did not support the plan from then on, even making it harder to agree with the city’s decision. Coupling the questionable politics with the loss of job opportunities makes it hard to support the decision. From a personal point of view, the city needed to convince Amazon on how to meet its needs for the paper’s interest while handling unintended consequences.
Instead of crying over spilled milk, politicians and developers in the community need to develop an alternative solution that is more suitable for the site meant for the Amazon plan. The community should be engaged in determining the most beneficial way to use the land. Demolition of the site is not an option, nor is leaving it to waste without generating income. The site could be used for another purpose that benefits the people, such as serving as a cultural site or converting into a public amenity.
On that note, a Community Land Trust (CLT) would help cross this bridge. Community land trusts address and manage issues that have to do with land. An insightful definition is, “If housing is the battlefield of our time, then the community land trust (CLT) model is an increasingly popular weapon wielded”(Thompson, 2020). The association assists in acquiring homes by being an intermediary and getting land on behalf of the people. In the case of the site in question, a CLT would help decide the most suitable way to capitalize on the site. In determining a way forward for the LIC site, New Yorkers can navigate the problem by working with such a trust. The people would have a platform to list their concerns and ensure the trust respects them. One of the problems that would be less likely to arise in the face of collaboration is the housing problems that came with so much controversy. New York would benefit by ensuring that the cost of shelter remains affordable and, where possible, the problem is mitigated. At the same time, beneficial use of the site in a sustainable manner would be found without the community feeling like they are losing themselves to development.
Part 2
The City of Yes plan has three main aspects: “Zoning for Economic Opportunity, Zoning for Housing Opportunity, and Zoning for Zero Carbon” (NYC.GOV,2022). Mayor Adam imagines a place where the economy is doing well without compromising the housing and ecological well-being. On that note, YIMBY stands to agree with the mayor on the new initiative. Various parties, including YIMBY, NIMBY, and political parties, have had diverse views on the proposal.
First, YIMBY longs for a community where the cost of shelter and economic opportunities are available for all. At the same time, creating businesses that are more conservative about the environment is promising, which YIMBY embraces. On the other hand, NIMBY would typically oppose the City of Yes plan. The focus of NIMBY is to ensure that regions do not change so much concerning infrastructure and housing (Mcnee & Pojani, 2022). Such developments often come with overpopulation and other socioeconomic challenges. Unlike what has been seen in the past, several politicians are more open to the City of Yes plan. This change of heart may arise from visiting a city such as Virginia to benefit from the Amazon deal. In Virginia, the heart of the development involved all stakeholders, from unions to the local party (Leseur, 2021). The change of heart indicates that New York has learned a valuable lesson to capitalize on politics in a manner that does not lead to loss, which is a good thing. However, conflict on the same persists for groups and activists still concerned about the adverse effects that come with development.
However, adding elements such as affordable housing to such plans has been shown to ease tension among opposers and give more consideration to local people. For example, Julie Won was against the Amazon plan in 2019 but changed her mind when the housing concerns got the necessary attention (Parry, 2022). All the pull and push seen in the conflict align with the growth machine theory. According to the theory, there are two main sides: one that prioritizes development, pro-growth, and the other that is anti-growth, which seems to be more concerned about effects such as gentrification (Ellickson, 2020). Overall, the push and pull between pro-growth and anti-growth sides determine a city’s progress or lack thereof. Despite the conflict, there is hope in that everyone seeks for communities to grow and the needs of people to come first. Therefore, engaging both sides and mitigating adverse effects like introducing the affordable housing plan into QNS development saw more economic opportunities and better living standards. At the same time, the risk of misplacement and housing problems is not much of a concern as there is a plan to anticipate the problem.
In conclusion, the community has a big part to play and may have the most influence in determining whether development pans out or fails. Hence, companies and parties seeking to create change must be keen on how they interact with all stakeholders in a community if they plan to be successful. The key benefit of collaboration is that development is made in such a way that it adopts or accommodates the needs of the people. It is leading to mutual benefit for investors and even local people. A community committee like that working with Amazon in New York should focus much more on politics rather than the politics of who is right or wrong. Instead, the focus must be on bringing pressing issues to light and finding less destructive solutions for the people. In a different scenario, the LIC plan would have come with job opportunities and development for the people. In addition, with effective advocacy, the plan would be made to resolve the housing problem instead of adding to it. Generally, effective community participation in development plans is beneficial.
References
Ellickson, R. C. (2020). The zoning straitjacket: The freezing of American neighborhoods of single-family houses. Ind. LJ, 96, 395. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/17985/Ellickson,%20The%20Zoning%20Strait%20Jacket-%20The%20Freezing%20of%20American%20Neighborhoods%20of%20Single-Family%20Houses.pdf?sequence=1
Lang, S., & Stabrowski, F. (2020). Lessons from New York City’s Struggle Against Amazon HQ2 in Long Island City. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=lg_pubs
LeSeur, M. (2021). Why Amazon’s HQ2 Failed in New York but Succeeded in Virginia — COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW. COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW. https://www.cpreview.org/blog/2021/10/why-amazons-hq2-failed-in-new-york-but-succeeded-in-virginia
McNee, G., & Pojani, D. (2022). NIMBYism as a barrier to housing and social mix in San Francisco. Journal of housing and the built environment, 37(1), 553-573. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10901-021-09857-6
NYC.GOV (2022). Mayor Adams Outlines Vision for “City of Yes,” Plan for Citywide Zoning Initiatives to Support Small Businesses, Create New Housing, Promote Sustainability. https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/353-22/mayor-adams-outlines-vision-city-yes-plan-citywide-zoning-initiatives-support
Parry, B. (2022). QNS https://qns.com/2022/11/won-supports-2-billion-innovation-qns/
Thompson, M. (2020). From co-ops to community land trusts: Tracing the historical evolution and policy mobilities of collaborative housing movements. Housing, Theory and Society, 37(1), 82-100. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14036096.2018.1517822
write