Port Authority Skirted Public Transparency Rules to Approve Amazon Air Cargo Mega-Hub, New Report Shows

Controversy is growing around the fast-tracked backroom deal

Report shows the project could have catastrophic consequences for communities of color in Newark

NEWARK – A report released today shows that Amazon and the Port Authority sidestepped public transparency rules to approve the proposed new Amazon air cargo mega-hub at the Newark International Airport. The report reveals new details on how the Port Authority led a fast-tracked backroom process to approve the deal.

The report, from the advocacy group Hedge Clippers, comes in the wake of growing opposition to the project, which would give Amazon a twenty-year lease through the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to lease 250,000 sq. ft. in air cargo facilities next to the airport, letting the company significantly expand its footprint in the tri-state area.

“The unaccountable Port Authority Board is trying to sneak this $432 million deal through without community input or adequate community benefits. This deal would hurt New Jersey communities by displacing union jobs, exacerbating environmental injustice, and further burdening the working class Black and Latinx communities that surround the Newark airport,” says the report. “The Port Authority Board must listen to the public outrage over this deal, and put the needs of local New Jersey communities before Amazon’s relentless global expansion and profit seeking behavior.”

The Amazon deal, first reported in August, has been shrouded in secrecy. In addition to an ongoing lack of transparency throughout the process, the community has been given no substantive opportunities to provide formal feedback. The report provides troubling new details about the process that led to the approval of the deal, including:

• The Port Authority Board used a fast-tracked process to approve the Amazon deal that involved no discussion and likely violated its Open Meetings policy and transparency resolution;
• The Port Authority failed to seek or include any public comment or testimony on the proposed deal;
• During the August 5 vote on the plan, the Board moved the Amazon vote intentionally to the end of the agenda;
• The August 5 agenda didn’t initially include the Amazon vote when distributed to the public;
• Board Chair Kevin O’Toole commented that none of the public statements made on the day of the vote pertained to items being voted on by the board;
• Amazon’s documented history of unfair labor practices likely violate the Port Authority’s Lessee Code of Ethics, which requires lease recipients to maintain “fair employment practices and interactions with the public and all workers.”

According to the report, the Port Authority’s deal with Amazon follows a long track record of keeping the public out of critical decisions. For example, the report cites documents showing that the Port Authority handpicked community impact criteria to justify the proposed AirTrain to LaGuardia and embellished the benefits of the project. In another failed project, the Port Authority misspent $35 million in federal funds to reduce pollution in communities surrounding the ports. The Board eventually abandoned the plan. The report also cites warnings from good government groups like Reinvent Albany that the Port Authority seems to operate outside New York and New Jersey’s public meeting laws.

The report also details the potentially catastrophic impact the deal would have on communities in Newark, especially communities of color. It shows the following:

• While Amazon touts the new jobs the cargo hub will create, in reality it is likely to displace good-paying union jobs and replace them with non-union, low-road jobs. Research has shown that when Amazon moves into a community, wages decline, turnover increases, and the rate of serious injuries skyrockets.

• The cargo hub will compound already existing truck traffic and toxic pollution near the Newark Airport, which overwhelmingly impacts Black and Latinx communities. Even though Amazon has made vague commitments to reducing emissions, it is still slated to significantly increase the already enormous volume of air and ground traffic, and without significant and immediate investments in zero emission technology, it will increase toxic pollution in the immediate term.

• Even as Congress is debating ways to rein in Amazon’s power, the deal would solidify Amazon’s dominance of the marketplace to the detriment of small and independent businesses. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker himself has called for breaking up Amazon to protect competition and consumers. But if the Newark deal goes through, Amazon’s presence is poised to decrease or destroy local retailers while driving up warehouse rents for smaller businesses.

The opposition to the Newark fight is just the latest headache for Amazon, which has increasingly faced headwinds as it tries to expand its footprint nationwide. Cities across the United States have increasingly fought Amazon’s expansion plans, including in New Jersey:

• In July 2021, the City Council in Fort Wayne, Indiana, voted against giving Amazon a tax abatement after widespread opposition from the community.
• In June 2021, the Arvada, Colo. city council voted to reject a land use ordinance that would have paved the way for a new Amazon delivery station, after thousands of residents spoke out against the pollution the facility would bring.
• In San Bernardino, California, local residents and community organizations are demanding a Community Benefits Agreement at a new Amazon air hub at the San Bernardino International Airport, which would include stipulations for clean air and good jobs. San Bernardino County suffers from heavy plane and truck pollution, and the new Amazon air hub would significantly exacerbate smog emissions.
• In Carteret, New Jersey, Mayor Dan Reiman called for an Amazon facility to be shut down after more than 30 workers tested positive for COVID-19 in April 2020. Amazon didn’t report the cases to local, county or state health officials until workers alerted the media.

As details of the plan have emerged in recent works, opposition to the deal has mounted across New Jersey.