bad news for fido, bpc

fidi.

The city, and particularly downtown, lost out in 2005 when the massive concessions (over and above the ones they originally agreed to) were made to "change Goldman's mind" about leaving Manahattan. They tried that once and none of the bankers would move to Jersey City so they were never going to try that one again but Pataki had to make one of his knee jerk decisions and cave in.

Because of the threats to leave, GS were not compelled to provide any kind of public amenities in the way that residential developers were required to such as the building of ps89, the ps234 annex in 200 Chambers.

Quote from the article.

"I’m not ruling out the idea that maybe some incentive package was worth considering for Goldman Sachs, but it seemed like we gave away the store".

Stephen Friedman, chairman of the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, resigned Thursday over questions about his ties to Goldman Sachs.

In a letter to Fed officials, Friedman said, "Today, although I have been in compliance with the rules, my public service motivated continuation on the Reserve Bank Board is being mischaracterized as improper. The Federal Reserve System has important work to do and does not need this distraction."

Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal raised questions about the influence of Goldman Sachs, on whose board Friedman sits, in shaping Washington's response to the financial crisis.

"The Federal Reserve Bank of New York shaped Washington's response to the financial crisis late last year, which buoyed Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and other Wall Street firms. Goldman received speedy approval to become a bank holding company in September and a $10 billion capital injection soon after," the Journal story said.

"During that time, the New York Fed's chairman, Stephen Friedman, sat on Goldman's board and had a large holding in Goldman stock, which because of Goldman's new status as a bank holding company was a violation of Federal Reserve policy."

I thought this was going to be a thread about how dogs aren't allowed in the public parks in BPC!
And I was about to second Jason's sentiment: "but old news, really. And bad for the city."
Tina
(Brooklyn broker)

Freudian slip?

But there are two dog runs in BPC that are never very crowded, so no. Though I like puppies.

However the idea that all of this is just "fake" on GS is ludicrous. Of the 350 or so fortune 500 companies that are left and that were HQed in Manhattan in the 70s, over half have moved out of the city - mostly to NJ, CT, or suburban NY, but in some cases out of the area entirely. Glaring examples include GE, IBM, all the Pharma companies (Pfizer just said they are leaving too), etc. Among foriegn firms, conspicuously UBS moved thousands of their highest paid workers to CT, etc, etc. The notion that a firm might up and leave Manhattan for a lower cost and/or lower tax area is not some idle threat. It has happened many times over the last 30 years, and has even happened in the last 5. The list of companies that have LEFT manhattan is longer than the list of who is still here.

Pepsi, Starwood...they will keep coming to me. Its literally over 100 household name firms...

A couple more for Jason

Exxon: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/27/nyregion/exxon-will-move-its-headquarters-to-texas.html

American Airlines: moved to Fort Worth in 1979

Can't think of any big financial institutions off the top of my head though...

"Can't think of any big financial institutions off the top of my head though..."

Already mentioned UBS. Those were THOUSANDS of salespeople and trades. And GE has made more of its profits from financial than anything else (or everything else combined) for the better part of two decades.

CIT Group (not citigroup, a totally separate and unrelated company) is another financial company. The sheer fact that soooo many hedge funds are in CT - some of them started there, bu MANY started in NYC and moved up there adds to the argument.

In geological, something that comes to mind from my early daze. Many financial firms started by moving back office, computer systems etc..etc.. out of the city. If memory serves correctly. I think the 80's saw a few move to Tampa Fl (maybe Soloman Bros), Jersey City (before it was cool), Parsippany (Bear)..there are others, this old brain can't remember though. This was the first step, and we know the rest. But the real question is What is next??

RBS / Greenwich capital just moved to a brand new custom built building in CT across the street from UBS...add that to your list...not that there are many people left at Greenwich Capital...it seems like half of the workforce has left for greener pastures...which is kindof sad as GC used to be the firm with the rep for paying the best % wise

OK, a little bit of (recent) history with respect the the GS site.
They had well developed plans to build their new HQ right where they are building now and were lobbying for $1B in liberty bonds or whatever they were called.
Unfortunately that was also the time when the inept Pataki was doing his damnedest to make a complete dog's dinner out of the WTC site, including the multi block submerging of some lanes West street with an entrance/exit right next to the GS site.
Old Hank was concerned that his people would get run over by cars emerging from the tunnel, plus he thought this was a huge security threat so a well timed leak that GS were pulling out forced Pataki to eat crow and halt his plans for the long tunnel and pony up another $650M worth of liberty bonds.

So it's not quite like the other examples given.

Uh-huh. 200 different fortune 500 companies have left Manhattan in the past 30 years. They ALL cited the expense of doing business here, and most taxes, as did GS when they considered moving. I don't get why that other stuff negates that.

Ya know, I'm just about done with a book on the history of NYC and it discusses all of the manufacturing jobs leaving NYC through the '60s and the affect that had on the NYC economy.

I wonder what having all of these companies, especially Wall Street, leave NYC or greatly reduce their headcounts will have on the economy over the next 5+ years. I mean, you have huge names evaporate, many more lay-off massive amounts of workers, some just leave the city, and some get bought out by companies HQ'd outside of the city (BAC buying ML is the main one that comes to mind), this can't bode well.

The manufacturing job loss helped usher in the destruction of the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Will the loss of white collar jobs bring the death knell to NYC now?

i think its safe to say that its going to be different but i don't see any reason why it will be dead. more affordable housing and more affordable living in general would seem to be a good thing not a bad one. plus, this is part of a world wide decline not nyc centric by any means. its not like these jobs are going somewhere else...they're just going away.

every place is hurting...the question will be if we can keep our heads and our politicans can support reasonable change.

jason, I am not disputing your overall point with the abundance of examples that you are giving.
Those companies did not play games with the city and state, they simply - or as simply as such a large move would allow ;) - moved. No leaked information that when tackled by caving to their demands magically reversed the decision that had only just been flip-flopped a few days earlier.

I am not denying the high cost of doing business in NY State, nor the fact that cost has driven many companies away. Not everything has to be generalized. I am merely talking about details that affected BPC and downtown whereas you are talking about a much larger issue - which is fine, but this does not negate my point.

Affected as in negatively despite GS staying whereas your point was the state and city were negatively impacted because others did not stay.

The loss of Fortune 500 companies and the fall of some great financial houses does not sound a "death knell" nor is it necessarily bad. In the long run, it is better to let some companies leave rather than to provide excessive tax breaks. Companies' rationale for relocating from New York City to the suburbs and Sunbelt are more often reflective of the management and employees needs (housing costs and commutes), or macroeconomic changes that cannot be addressed by local tax breaks (lower labor costs outside of region). It is almost always better for a city to attract businesses in emerging economic sectors rather than to "give away the store" in an attempt to keep companies that have stronger economic forces pulling them elsewhere. Adjusting to economic changes and diversifying economy is what successful cities have always done in order to remain viable. As for GS, the city's attorneys should assert the force majeure clause, pay them nothing, and make Goldman sue. I want to see where they're going to find a jury to award GS a nine figure award.

"The loss of Fortune 500 companies and the fall of some great financial houses does not sound a "death knell" nor is it necessarily bad. In the long run, it is better to let some companies leave rather than to provide excessive tax breaks"

Yes, better for a company to employ NOONE and pay NO taxes in this town than to give them a discount.

Did you really try and argue that companies leaving town is not a bad thing?

Who the hell do you think is going to pay for everything when they are gone?