CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[Kenmore]

landing amazon would be huge for rahm, he needs this bad

[k1052]

Reading the RFP they want:

Within 30 miles of pop center

45 minutes to international airport ww/ frequent favorable distance and schedules to e/w coasts

1-2 miles to major highways

access to mass transit AT SITE

minimum 500,000 sq ft initial footprint by 2019
Up to 8M sq ft by 2027

Optimal fiber optic connectivity

The importance of adhering to their time table is mentioned several times in the document. I think I know somebody who can deliver any and all required entitlements at the speed of light...

[Randomguy34]

^^ The RFP literally makes it sound like they want the Old Post Office (direct Blue Line service to O'hare, large initial footprint by 2019, West Loop has some of the best fiber optic access in the country, literally on top of a highway, etc..)

[the urban politician]

Old Post Office. Period.

And screw Amazon. I don't care what they do with their HQ, I hate corporate welfare. They are turning into a monopoly and they should be broken up by the Dept of Justice before they pit every town and city in America against each other so they can "land" an Amazon office. It's just stupid how much we kowtow to big corporations these days.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Old Post Office. Period.

And screw Amazon. I don't care what they do with their HQ, I hate corporate welfare. They are turning into a monopoly and they should be broken up by the Dept of Justice before they pit every town and city in America against each other so they can "land" an Amazon office. It's just stupid how much we kowtow to big corporations these days.

Lol, I figured this would be your response .

I'm also increasingly skeptical of Amazon. I would welcome the 50,000 high-paying jobs though, so .

[chiphile]

http://www.govtech.com/Illinois-CIO-...or-Amazon.html

Illinois CIO Hardik Bhatt to Leave for Amazon

BY EYRAGON EIDAM / SEPTEMBER 7, 2017
GOVTECH

Though the CIO could not discuss the finer details of his new position with the technology giant, he could say that he would be part of a new public-sector-facing team focused largely on the Internet of Things (IoT) as it relates to transportation and smart cities.

Bhatt, who was appointed by Gov. Bruce Rauner in March 2015, led the Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) in an aggressive transformation program. He said he will miss the work he does for the state, but that he hopes to continue working closely with the public sector in his new capacity.

[bnk]

An older article but it was never posted yet.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...s-deal-to-lose

September 08, 2017

Amazon is Chicago's deal to lose


John Pletz on Tech

...

[tjp]

oh lord - i just realized that, with proposals due in October and a decision sometime next year, there's a good chance Amazon execs will be touring the Chicago site in the dead of winter.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by tjp

oh lord - i just realized that, with proposals due in October and a decision sometime next year, there's a good chance Amazon execs will be touring the Chicago site in the dead of winter.

Chicago having a winter doesn't seem to be a sure bet anymore. Seems the last few years since the Polar Vorticies have been maybe a couple of two week periods of actual winter punctuating 5 or 6 months of 55 degree gloomy Seattle weather, lol. For all we know it will be 60 degrees in the middle of December.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by tjp

oh lord - i just realized that, with proposals due in October and a decision sometime next year, there's a good chance Amazon execs will be touring the Chicago site in the dead of winter.

Pretty sure Amazon is familiar with Chicago weather since they have an office here and just recently expanded it.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by tjp

oh lord - i just realized that, with proposals due in October and a decision sometime next year, there's a good chance Amazon execs will be touring the Chicago site in the dead of winter.

If I remember correctly Boeing visited Chicago First of the three cities in early March.

[ It was very cold but sunny if I recall] for two days than both two days in Dallas and Denver.

They took helicopter rides over all of the three btw. By Helicopter they ruled out Elgin as just too far away. Also The snow was gone by than.


Denver wasn't even a real chance. The burbs over there sent a bid vs the city of Denver and it was only like 16 million in incentives. I think they learned a lot from that failed bit. They came in a way back distant third back than.

Dallas made a good bid, and IMO it could have gone either way.

IMO they are already scouting out the site selection process right now.

It will Not be in the third week of January.


But I have to admit the leak from Boston was worrisome but its still early and leaks can be fake news... I would rather deal with a Chicago leak vs any other city...



Chicago will look pretty good from the sky in October.

Even if they do not do all I said they would Amazon is an impulsive company that moves fast. See Whole Foods as an example.

We have the spaces for them.

They will do helicopters or if not you can be sure about drones flying the friendly sky's looking down at transient, homes, access, and what not for the next month or so.


This is Amazon right now. They can do what ever they want and will do so.

I personally believe they will make up their choice far before 2018.

Do the competition have any plug and play sites right now like Chicago does IE the OPO? I have not heard of any thus far but this is a Chicago centric thread, perhaps they do.

Further input on the last sentence would be appreciated.

BTW Bezos is about as blue of a liberal as you can get. I know he spent time growing up in southern Texas, But....

Again I ask Where is Obama in all of this sell? What about his legacy and his library.

If anyone would want to cement his legacy in the City that put him in the White House you would think he would be all gang busters to help out. As of now I have heard nothing from his camp or anyone from Illinois touting him.


It seems Durbin is more active on this type of thing when really Obama should be leading the way [ he would have more sway than the orange one on this deal that I am sure of. ]

[ardecila]

Crain's listed out a couple of possible sites.

Riverside Park, Old Post Office, Finkl Steel, Tribune/Freedom Center. Also Michael Reese, which I wasn't thinking about, but which would solve a big problem for the city.

One that wasn't mentioned was the large swath of vacant land in the Illinois Medical District south of Roosevelt. Lots of land, easy to construct a Pink Line infill station, Ashland/Damen buses to North Side neighborhoods. Already a street grid in place. Metra BNSF runs next to the site. Certainly an Amazon campus would be a lot better than the smorgasbord of shitty development we've gotten there so far (Costco, heliport, strip mall, etc). The noise from the heliport might be a dealbreaker, though.

[chiphile]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Crain's listed out a couple of possible sites.

Riverside Park, Old Post Office, Finkl Steel, Tribune/Freedom Center. Also Michael Reese, which I wasn't thinking about, but which would solve a big problem for the city.

One that wasn't mentioned was the large swath of vacant land in the Illinois Medical District south of Roosevelt. Lots of land, easy to construct a Pink Line infill station, Ashland/Damen buses to North Side neighborhoods. Already a street grid in place. Metra BNSF runs next to the site. Certainly an Amazon campus would be a lot better than the smorgasbord of shitty development we've gotten there so far (Costco, heliport, strip mall, etc). The noise from the heliport might be a dealbreaker, though.

This is the kind of stuff that sinks Chicago from these big wins. Every major newspaper in Chicago has talked about the Finkle Steel site, Michael Reese, or some other doofus idea on the south side. No sane CEO or company (or grocery store for the matter) will locate within a couple miles of a war zone.
These are foreign concepts for most people, let alone those from Seattle.

Why on Earth would I want to commute to a site south of Roosevelt if I'm working for Amazon--on top of that, with 50,000 people? Amazon's Seattle campus is urban, with walkers and bikers moving in all hours of the day. Instead of large open spaces, Chicago should pitch the still empty lots on the west loop that can be infilled with Amazon offices (including some buildings ready for a tear down). Or the old post office, connected to the new union station redevelopment. If I were Rahm, I'd push for new and more inspiring union station redevelopment now, with Amazon in mind.

Chicago offers Amazon a downtown Seattle-type of development opportunity, with the amenities of Manhattan, direct rail to both airports and the entire metro area with commuter rail. Nothing beats Chicago for what Amazon wants, in my view. The politicians really need to come together for this one; yes, Chicago will do fine without Amazon, but it'll be a huge, tangible loss if it goes somewhere else. You can't argue that 50,000 tech workers adding to the city 500 at a time through small startups is better, while 50,000 added in a matter of years by one behemoth is worse.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by chiphile

This is the kind of stuff that sinks Chicago from these big wins. Every major newspaper in Chicago has talked about the Finkle Steel site, Michael Reese, or some other doofus idea on the south side. No sane CEO or company (or grocery store for the matter) will locate within a couple miles of a war zone.
These are foreign concepts for most people, let alone those from Seattle.

Why on Earth would I want to commute to a site south of Roosevelt if I'm working for Amazon--on top of that, with 50,000 people? Amazon's Seattle campus is urban, with walkers and bikers moving in all hours of the day. Instead of large open spaces, Chicago should pitch the still empty lots on the west loop that can be infilled with Amazon offices (including some buildings ready for a tear down). Or the old post office, connected to the new union station redevelopment. If I were Rahm, I'd push for new and more inspiring union station redevelopment now, with Amazon in mind.

Chicago offers Amazon a downtown Seattle-type of development opportunity, with the amenities of Manhattan, direct rail to both airports and the entire metro area with commuter rail. Nothing beats Chicago for what Amazon wants, in my view. The politicians really need to come together for this one; yes, Chicago will do fine without Amazon, but it'll be a huge, tangible loss if it goes somewhere else. You can't argue that 50,000 tech workers adding to the city 500 at a time through small startups is better, while 50,000 added in a matter of years by one behemoth is worse.

Finkle is a real option - public and private money are being pushed to make it essentially an environment very similar to the South Lake Union area of Seattle that is very popular with all sorts of people in Seattle. South Lake Union was basically nothing ten years ago and now it's packed with knowledge economy workers and nice residences in 5-15 story buildings. That's kinda what I think Goose Island and Finkle are aiming for, and it's the sort of area you see in Seattle with tech companies, that you see in the waterfront parts of San Francisco for tech companies, that you see in Cambridge, for tech companies. It's a desirable model, and Chicago should offer sometime along those lines for companies that want that.

That said, I think Amazon would be better served choosing one of the several Loop-adjacent spots, and the Old Post Office is really possibly exactly what they want - it'll have 500,000 square feet in the timeframe they want, then a million or so more shortly after, then the adjacent Union Station redevelopment can get them close to the claimed 8 million they want to ultimately end up with, and the other vacant lots nearby could easily provide the difference to get them to that.

But, we have to remember, Amazon, if they do what they say they're going to do, will also pull in nearly as many supporting jobs in other companies, plus if even only 1/4 of their workforce wants to live near downtown in Chicago, that's many thousands of additional residential to support sites like Reese or Tri-Taylor. Adventurous individuals will choose locations that the corporation itself may not. Smaller companies will choose less-prime spots to be close but have cheap rent. This, as advertised at least, is much bigger than just Amazon. And if Amazon located here and drew in a large number of top-shelf tech talent, Google, Facebook, etc, will expand their offices here - it happened in Seattle, it would happen here. All said and done, if Amazon is serious about their goals, this is probably something capable of generating more in the range of 150,000-200,000 new high-paying jobs in whatever city wins over the next two decades. The only real question is whether Amazon is serious or just fluffing things up to draw in strong competitive offers. If they're serious, Chicago and Illinois could let the corporation locate here tax free for 20 years and still come out ahead - I believe it really would be that significant if Amazon is being truthful about their goals.

[Kngkyle]

It really does seem like Chicago is one of the top 3 if not the absolute best choice for them when you consider airport connections, mass transit, cost of living, developable land, and access to talent. If those are their main criteria who is in a better position than Chicago? I can think of none. The closest is probably Atlanta.. but their mass transit is not great and talent isn't on par with Chicago. If one of their main considerations is what city/state can offer the most $$ to them (in the form of incentives and low taxes) then that makes it more difficult for Chicago to compete.

One thing is for sure though, Amazon is no Foxconn. This is a much much bigger and more secure prize than the ripoff Wisconsin got with Foxconn. I would support the city and state offering a reasonable incentive package. Our fundamentals are strong though, so we shouldn't have to compensate with some ridiculous incentive package.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by chiphile

This is the kind of stuff that sinks Chicago from these big wins. Every major newspaper in Chicago has talked about the Finkle Steel site, Michael Reese, or some other doofus idea on the south side. No sane CEO or company (or grocery store for the matter) will locate within a couple miles of a war zone.
These are foreign concepts for most people, let alone those from Seattle.

Why on Earth would I want to commute to a site south of Roosevelt if I'm working for Amazon--on top of that, with 50,000 people? Amazon's Seattle campus is urban, with walkers and bikers moving in all hours of the day. Instead of large open spaces, Chicago should pitch the still empty lots on the west loop that can be infilled with Amazon offices (including some buildings ready for a tear down). Or the old post office, connected to the new union station redevelopment. If I were Rahm, I'd push for new and more inspiring union station redevelopment now, with Amazon in mind.

Chicago offers Amazon a downtown Seattle-type of development opportunity, with the amenities of Manhattan, direct rail to both airports and the entire metro area with commuter rail. Nothing beats Chicago for what Amazon wants, in my view. The politicians really need to come together for this one; yes, Chicago will do fine without Amazon, but it'll be a huge, tangible loss if it goes somewhere else. You can't argue that 50,000 tech workers adding to the city 500 at a time through small startups is better, while 50,000 added in a matter of years by one behemoth is worse.

^ I tend to agree that their best bet is to go with an Old Post Office, Union Station type of location.

Every time there is ANY discussion about any potential large project in Chicago (casino, etc), the local media like clockwork brings up the same 4 or 5 lame ass sites--Michael Reese, US Steel, Riverside Park, etc--as if it's the first time those sites have ever been considered. To hell with the Michael Reese site! Stop planning mega-developments there--just let people build townhomes and condos, admit that Daley fucked up big time, and move on.

Regarding Corporate Welf-azon and their "HQ2", if the city is going to do this then enough with the lazy journalism. Be sharp and focus on 1 or 2 very strong sites and get the developers/owners on board quickly. And the Old Post Office and Union Station are clearly the best sites.

[marothisu]

Given all the criteria, I'd agree that Chicago is maybe in the top 5. I think there have been cities like Atlanta and Dallas floated around, but I think ultimately they will lose out due to their vastly inferior public transit options when compared to other cities/areas. Some of the areas that have been floated around like Michael Reese are not going to work probably, but could. For this though, doubtful. I don't think Finkl Steel would either and US Steel is such a terrible choice it's not even funny. Old Post Office area is the clear winner here IMO. Quite honestly, some of these criteria make me believe that they know Chicago is one of the tops but have to go through RFP by law or to maintain a certain illusion. In the business world, I've seen this happen due to a few laws.

1) Amazon wants 500K sq ft of space in an already existing building plus they want to be close to public transit and major expressways. First of all, this obviously screams Old Post Office site. My question is - what other cities have this to offer right now? It's a serious question and I think an important one, but I also don't know.

That is not a small amount of space, but given the other requirements, it severely narrows the field down. I am not familiar with other areas' sites, but I'd really be impressed if cities like Dallas, Austin, Denver, Atlanta, etc had this already given all the criteria. Also, can their systems handle an increase load of this many people? 3000 to start with, but by the end of it - 50K. Truly how many systems can handle this in the US? The answer is not many - Chicago probably could but there's no way in hell that Atlanta, Dallas, Austin, Denver, etc could handle that. They would have to have a lot of work done and there's no way Amazon is paying for that (well maybe, but doubtful).

2) The OPO is 2.5 or 2.7 million square feet and can expand. I know there's some vacant/parking lots around there which I'm sure could be sold to Amazon. Some other buildings might cash out too - who knows. Is this adequate though given they want up to 8 million sq ft by the end of it? They'd probably need to go more vertical which means they'd probably need to build multiple skyscrapers for that much space.

3) Is there any way you'd think they'd take up the Old Post Office first and then build a bunch of stuff down on the 62 acre site just south of Roosevelt? That site I believe was slated to handle something like 10 million sq ft of space. It's already close to public transit and expressways - really close to Old Post Office. Wondering how likely it is that this would happen and then eventually Amazon would abandon the OPO for this area once more is built.

4) They want a place with good COL - that doesn't bode well for NYC and Boston. Chicago and Seattle have very similar COL so they already know what they're working with. Dallas, Austin, and Atlanta are probably just as good if not better than Chicago for this. However, they all come with car culture which increases the COL.

5) Amazon in the RFP wants consideration of outdoor activities. Dallas has a few nice lakes, but nothing compared to Lake Michigan. Atlanta and Austin don't really compete with this. Boston has Vermont and what not close by and the bay - not bad. Bay area probably is best for this but other criteria don't go well for it. We all know Lake Michigan but think about it this way too - OPO is right on the river. People working there could literally go kayaking, canoe, boating, etc right from the office. The lake and all that is close too. Some places can boast stuff like "You can be skiing in Vermont in 4 hours" but few places can probably boast that level of the nature being right there given everything else.

6) They apparently are asking for crime statistics which doesn't exactly bode well for Chicago, but I'm pretty sure that given each site that Chicago has in the RFP they'll run the statistics given a mile or so radius. That will make things look a little better. However, don't forget that some of these cities like Atlanta actually have high crime rates too. Cities like Austin have pretty low rates though for violent crime.

7) They apparently want some incentives. I don't buy the "it doesn't bode well for Chicago/Illinois" thing actually. I think that people are too used to a corporate HQ moving here with only 100 people. If that were the case then I'd completely and utterly agree. However, we are talking about 50K people here and that works out well for the state and city well enough to offer incentives.

At the peak let's say the average worker gets $100K per year and there are 50K workers - at a (upcoming) 4.95% income tax rate in Illinois, that means the state will be getting an extra nearly $250M per year in income tax revenue alone. After 10 years, that's nearly $2.5B. This isn't counting anything else - let's say those 50K workers spend an average of $2000 per year in the city of Chicago on things at the highest sales tax - that's over $10M per year in sales tax revenue for the city. Then you factor in all the business visitors and hotel taxes - say you get 1000 business travelers to Chicago per week at an average of $250 per night - that's another over $2M in hotel tax revenue. This isn't even counting people buying and the property tax that comes with that. Point being, with this many people in the long run the state and city would definitely benefit from giving something like a tax break. If this was just 100 corporate C-suite people then I'd totally agree that it doesn't work in the favor of the city state. This is vastly different though.

Depending on what type of break they'd be offered, this could basically in the end even it up in the fairly short term and in the long run definitely work in the city's favor. What's the alternative? 0 new workers and $0 in new taxes for the city and state. Or...you could get 50K pretty well paid workers and get tons of new tax revenue from the workers alone - not even counting business taxes. Chicago and Illinois don't have to offer up actual money right now. They offer up in the form of tax breaks. If Amazon doesn't come here, the city and state gets $0. It's completely in their best interest in this case to offer reasonable incentives to Amazon.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Given all the criteria, I'd agree that Chicago is maybe in the top 5. I think there have been cities like Atlanta and Dallas floated around, but I think ultimately they will lose out due to their vastly inferior public transit options when compared to other cities/areas. Some of the areas that have been floated around like Michael Reese are not going to work probably, but could. For this though, doubtful. I don't think Finkl Steel would either and US Steel is such a terrible choice it's not even funny. Old Post Office area is the clear winner here IMO. Quite honestly, some of these criteria make me believe that they know Chicago is one of the tops but have to go through RFP by law or to maintain a certain illusion. In the business world, I've seen this happen due to a few laws.

1) Amazon wants 500K sq ft of space in an already existing building plus they want to be close to public transit and major expressways. First of all, this obviously screams Old Post Office site. My question is - what other cities have this to offer right now? It's a serious question and I think an important one, but I also don't know.

That is not a small amount of space, but given the other requirements, it severely narrows the field down. I am not familiar with other areas' sites, but I'd really be impressed if cities like Dallas, Austin, Denver, Atlanta, etc had this already given all the criteria. Also, can their systems handle an increase load of this many people? 3000 to start with, but by the end of it - 50K. Truly how many systems can handle this in the US? The answer is not many - Chicago probably could but there's no way in hell that Atlanta, Dallas, Austin, Denver, etc could handle that. They would have to have a lot of work done and there's no way Amazon is paying for that (well maybe, but doubtful).

2) The OPO is 2.5 or 2.7 million square feet and can expand. I know there's some vacant/parking lots around there which I'm sure could be sold to Amazon. Some other buildings might cash out too - who knows. Is this adequate though given they want up to 8 million sq ft by the end of it? They'd probably need to go more vertical which means they'd probably need to build multiple skyscrapers for that much space.

3) Is there any way you'd think they'd take up the Old Post Office first and then build a bunch of stuff down on the 62 acre site just south of Roosevelt? That site I believe was slated to handle something like 10 million sq ft of space. It's already close to public transit and expressways - really close to Old Post Office. Wondering how likely it is that this would happen and then eventually Amazon would abandon the OPO for this area once more is built.

4) They want a place with good COL - that doesn't bode well for NYC and Boston. Chicago and Seattle have very similar COL so they already know what they're working with. Dallas, Austin, and Atlanta are probably just as good if not better than Chicago for this. However, they all come with car culture which increases the COL.

5) Amazon in the RFP wants consideration of outdoor activities. Dallas has a few nice lakes, but nothing compared to Lake Michigan. Atlanta and Austin don't really compete with this. Boston has Vermont and what not close by and the bay - not bad. Bay area probably is best for this but other criteria don't go well for it. We all know Lake Michigan but think about it this way too - OPO is right on the river. People working there could literally go kayaking, canoe, boating, etc right from the office. The lake and all that is close too. Some places can boast stuff like "You can be skiing in Vermont in 4 hours" but few places can probably boast that level of the nature being right there given everything else.

6) They apparently are asking for crime statistics which doesn't exactly bode well for Chicago, but I'm pretty sure that given each site that Chicago has in the RFP they'll run the statistics given a mile or so radius. That will make things look a little better. However, don't forget that some of these cities like Atlanta actually have high crime rates too. Cities like Austin have pretty low rates though for violent crime.

7) They apparently want some incentives. I don't buy the "it doesn't bode well for Chicago/Illinois" thing actually. I think that people are too used to a corporate HQ moving here with only 100 people. If that were the case then I'd completely and utterly agree. However, we are talking about 50K people here and that works out well for the state and city well enough to offer incentives.

At the peak let's say the average worker gets $100K per year and there are 50K workers - at a (upcoming) 4.95% income tax rate in Illinois, that means the state will be getting an extra nearly $250M per year in income tax revenue alone. After 10 years, that's nearly $2.5B. This isn't counting anything else - let's say those 50K workers spend an average of $2000 per year in the city of Chicago on things at the highest sales tax - that's over $10M per year in sales tax revenue for the city. Then you factor in all the business visitors and hotel taxes - say you get 1000 business travelers to Chicago per week at an average of $250 per night - that's another over $2M in hotel tax revenue. This isn't even counting people buying and the property tax that comes with that. Point being, with this many people in the long run the state and city would definitely benefit from giving something like a tax break. If this was just 100 corporate C-suite people then I'd totally agree that it doesn't work in the favor of the city state. This is vastly different though.

Depending on what type of break they'd be offered, this could basically in the end even it up in the fairly short term and in the long run definitely work in the city's favor. What's the alternative? 0 new workers and $0 in new taxes for the city and state. Or...you could get 50K pretty well paid workers and get tons of new tax revenue from the workers alone - not even counting business taxes. Chicago and Illinois don't have to offer up actual money right now. They offer up in the form of tax breaks. If Amazon doesn't come here, the city and state gets $0. It's completely in their best interest in this case to offer reasonable incentives to Amazon.

Housing is considerably more affordable in Chicago than in Seattle these days. I'm not sure on operating costs. Probably about the same. I still feel this is something we have a great shot at. Rahm better be working around the clock to make this happen. Would be a huge talking point for his reelection should he decide to run. I wonder if Rauner is involved at all. He could certainly use the win as well...

[bnk]

I got to be thinking Rahm who was a chief of staff has Obama's ear.

Obama needs to sit down with Bezos invite him over. I know he isn't the president anymore but he certainly has a lot of clout and respect.

Obama's Chicago put him in the White House. He's building his library here.

This needs a sell from all parties from Rahm with Rauner to Obama to the many CEO's and Pritzkers of the city come together.

No Friends of the Parking lots needed. No alderman from the SE wastelands

• Video Link

If Obama can fly to Copenhagen to sell Chicago I'm sure he can make it out to Seattle.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by marothisu

...

7) They apparently want some incentives. I don't buy the "it doesn't bode well for Chicago/Illinois" thing actually. I think that people are too used to a corporate HQ moving here with only 100 people. If that were the case then I'd completely and utterly agree. However, we are talking about 50K people here and that works out well for the state and city well enough to offer incentives.

At the peak let's say the average worker gets $100K per year and there are 50K workers - at a (upcoming) 4.95% income tax rate in Illinois, that means the state will be getting an extra nearly $250M per year in income tax revenue alone. After 10 years, that's nearly $2.5B. This isn't counting anything else - let's say those 50K workers spend an average of $2000 per year in the city of Chicago on things at the highest sales tax - that's over $10M per year in sales tax revenue for the city. Then you factor in all the business visitors and hotel taxes - say you get 1000 business travelers to Chicago per week at an average of $250 per night - that's another over $2M in hotel tax revenue. This isn't even counting people buying and the property tax that comes with that. Point being, with this many people in the long run the state and city would definitely benefit from giving something like a tax break. If this was just 100 corporate C-suite people then I'd totally agree that it doesn't work in the favor of the city state. This is vastly different though.

Depending on what type of break they'd be offered, this could basically in the end even it up in the fairly short term and in the long run definitely work in the city's favor. What's the alternative? 0 new workers and $0 in new taxes for the city and state. Or...you could get 50K pretty well paid workers and get tons of new tax revenue from the workers alone - not even counting business taxes. Chicago and Illinois don't have to offer up actual money right now. They offer up in the form of tax breaks. If Amazon doesn't come here, the city and state gets $0. It's completely in their best interest in this case to offer reasonable incentives to Amazon.

This whole post was great but who ever poo poo's Chicago's bid because we are so awe poor... There's ways of giving incentive without writing Billion dollar checks ala Foxconn scam.
How about like 20 years of no corporate tax for Amazon. Its still a massive win.