What’s going to kill Amazon.com chances? We can’t make up our minds

The more I think about it, the more I’m starting to believe that Amazon.com is likely to pick some place other than Chicago to be the site of the new second headquarters they want to build somewhere in the United States.

Could the Amazon.com logo become a part ...

As much as I think the Seattle-based Amazon types would be total lunkheads if they can’t appreciate how wonderful Chicago would be for their corporate needs, I also think we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves for the eventual failure.

FOR IT SEEMS that our political people who ultimately are going to have to put together some sort of package of incentives to entice Amazon.com types to come here are going to get undone by their own indecisiveness.

For it seems we can’t even agree on where we would want to have such a headquarters built – and the various interests who are each touting individual sites seem to think that “compromise” is defined as “Everybody else ought to shut up and do what we think is right!”

Within Chicago alone, there are supposedly six locations under consideration, and I’ve also heard from assorted interest groups who can easily tout locations that aren’t on the unofficial list of a half-dozen prospective sites.

I know that in my own home part of Chicago (the 10^th Ward, or southeast corner of the city), there are people who are getting all worked up that they think the knuckleheads at City Hall aren’t united by trying to entice Amazon.com with the site of the old U.S. Steel South Works plant along Lake Michigan.

THAT’S THE SITE where many developers have talked about trying to develop upscale neighborhoods taking advantage of the lake’s proximity. Although I suspect many of those city officials trying to put together a Chicago proposal want a location more potentially upscale than something at 79^th Street and the lakefront.

... of Chicago cityscape like Walgreen's?

Their idea of a waterfront site for Amazon.com usually talks about the Chicago River, specifically the north branch. Where there are some architectural drawings in existence that show an artistically-spectacular structure that could be erected for Amazon.com.

Or others talk about turning the Old Post Office building in the South Loop into a headquarters – citing how it is historically significant, would be a nice re-use and also would be within walking distance of other prominent downtown Chicago structures and businesses.

Some even speculate about a suburban site, such as the Oak Brook location where McDonald's used to have its 'Hamburger U' where it trained franchise managers. We can't even get our own thoughts together united behind a proposal. Which makes me wonder if the Amazon.com types will just write us off altogether.

YET IT’S NOT just the city trying to get itself involved in the Amazon.com battle.

Gov. Bruce Rauner admits Illinois will be working with St. Louis officials who are trying to entice Amazon.com to come to their city. Rauner figures that it would benefit the Illinois residents of Madison and St. Clair counties (which are this state’s portion of the St. Louis metropolitan area) if the plant were to be located there.

Could Kankakee or Gary, Ind., ...

Yet that may not be the only Illinois alternate interest.

The Capitol Fax newsletter reported this week that Kankakee County officials are trying to persuade Rauner to include their area in any state proposal to try to get Amazon.com to come to Illinois.

A KANKAKEE-AREA based facility would have proximity to the far south end of the Chicago area, while also being not that far from the University of Illinois campus in Urbana.

Then, there’s also the potential political battle evolving just over the state line in Indiana, where Lake County business officials are trying to put together a proposal to try to entice Amazon.com to locate in the Hoosier state, while Gary, Ind., city officials are putting together their own proposal – one that they advertised earlier this week in the New York Times.

... bring Amazon.com into proximity of Chicago?

Both of those groups are claiming their proximity to Chicago means Amazon.com could get the Chicago-area labor without having to actually locate in Chicago.

That’s a lot of confusion, and there’s always the chance of more groups trying to tout themselves between now and Oct. 25 – the date that Amazon.com supposedly wants to have proposals submitted by. Enough confusion that the Seattle types could easily wind up deciding that the New York Times was right in recommending Denver as the best site.

  -30-

RTA lawsuit being turned into battle of ‘Chicago versus small towns’

I’m not sure what to think of the merits of the Regional Transportation Authority’s lawsuit filed against two municipalities on the fringe of the Chicago area.

But the response from those towns (Channahon in Grundy County and Kankakee to the far south) is all too predictable. They want to view this as an incident of Mighty Chicago trying to pick on them.

WHICH IS RIDICULOUS when one realizes that Chicago city government technically has nothing to do with this particular lawsuit – unless you want to adopt the “conspiracy theory” mode that says Chicago is at the heart of everything that is wrong!

So my gut reaction is to think that there might be merit to the lawsuit filed by the RTA – which technically is an entity of Illinois state government. Perhaps the local politicos should be ranting toward Springfield instead of Chicago, although the city did file its own followup lawsuit in support of the RTA late in the day on Tuesday.

The primary lawsuit that got filed says that local governments in Kankakee and Channahon – in their attempts to create tax-incentive programs meant to bring (and keep) businesses within their boundaries – are causing less sales tax revenues to be produced.

Considering that the RTA relies on a share of sales tax revenues to help produce the money that it then assigns to its service boards (the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace) to maintain all those commuter trains and buses, anything that hurts their bottom line has a backlash to be felt across a large area.

THE LAWSUIT FILED in Cook County Circuit Court claims the RTA is losing about $20 million per year, just because those two municipalities are willing to see less taxes charged in order to keep businesses.

There also is the fact that those outer counties have lower tax rates than Cook County, which has led some businesses to relocate their offices to those outer suburbs to get out of having to pay (or charge) the higher tax rate of the city proper.

Which also translates into less money that ultimately flows to the RTA. Although I'm sure they're going to argue (perhaps legitimately) that they have a right to charge less in tax rates (usually because they're offering significantly less in services than large cities do).

Now considering that just about all local governments rely on tax incentives to attract business (playing off of that corporate attitude that seems to believe businesses should not have to pay any taxes), I find it a little greedy for one government to complain that another government’s incentives are hurting them.

BUT THEN AGAIN, there is a certain competitive nature that occurs between municipalities. They’re all trying to attract business, and any one town’s gain goes to the disadvantage of all the communities surrounding them.

So what should we think?

I just have a hard time taking seriously the statement issued by Channahon’s village administrator (the full-time professional who runs the town, with guidance from the part-time mayor and trustees), which tries to make this a ‘Chicago versus us’ type-of-issue.

They claim they were not notified of anything by Chicago or Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Which is true, since it isn’t their lawsuit.

I ALSO GOT my chuckle from the reference to the fact that Channahon’s budget is less than half of 1 percent that of Chicago city government.

If Channahon officials have any legitimate point in their response, it is the fact that the Illinois Department of Revenue ultimately distributes money raised from sales taxes. Perhaps the RTA’s “beef” is really with their fellow state agency?

Which is why those officials are correct when they say they’re following the letter of the law and complying with the state tax code. Then again, the state is merely following the guidelines set by the individual communities when it concerns who gets tax breaks and who does not.

Kankakee officials may have a more telling point. Mayor Nina Epstein told the Associated Press that the businesses her community is able to attract ultimately benefit the entire state of Illinois because those companies – most with single locations – would be located in other states if not for their preference for Kankakee.

WHICH COMES ACROSS as a little more mature than claiming “Mighty Chicago” is picking on us – like we’re hearing from Channahon officials.

Taking the broad approach that benefits us all, rather than focusing on the minutia of municipal matters, is most likely the way to win in the end.

Particularly since this lawsuit is starting out in Chicago-favorable territory of Cook County court – but is destined to wind up in the appeals courts, if not the Supreme Court of Illinois oh so many years from now.

  -30-