Amazon did the right thing. The so-called “community” showed its force that if Amazon stuck it out and moved ahead with the plan, nobody will know what kind of extortion will come their way in the future from these politicians and local organizations. Essentially these “thugs” said they own the place, so business better stay away.
2 Likes
In the last 10 years, Seattle tax revenue is up 40% while the population is up 10%. The city should be flush with cash. Instead, they manage it so poorly they are constantly trying to come up with new taxes to give them more money. I don’t believe people fall for that BS.
2 Likes
Moral of the story: Don’t be cheap. Expand in Manhattan instead of Queens. Just like put your office in San Francisco instead of Oakland.
Where do you think those Oakland community organizers get their ideas from?
They don’t want AOC to turn them into Venezuela. They should sign apetition to impeach her.
2 Likes
The way Bezos’ offer was first divided into two (why wasn’t the full deal transferred to Crystal City) and then suddenly withdrawn from NY makes one question how serious his gargantuan HQ2 proposal was in the first place… 
There were bound to be some complaints. If there is no attempt to work it out, it comes off looking like Bezos was looking for excuses to walk away and play victim. Or maybe he just expects It all to be nicely rolled out for him (the way Paul Allen helped with the Seattle HQ).
1 Like
Yes because female CEOs don’t care about shareholders and would prioritize the community above shareholders.
Ignored
Why did he pick 2 second headquarters? Maybe he was hedging his bets.
Maybe, but he changed the terms in the process and then pulled out of one, making it a non-bet. Now the HQ2 game seems like it was just Bezos’ way of pitting cities against Seattle as part of a bargaining device. NYC had committed to expand its transportation infrastructure based on the original terms. I don’t know how much Amazon contributed to growing Seattle’s infrastructure, but it seems like a responsibility the company does not want to take on.
Increasingly the image of Bozos is that of a socially irresponsible crook.
Why should it? That’s why taxes are collected. Seattle tax revenue is up 40% while population is only up 10%. The city should be flush with money to fund things. Instead, they create bicycle lanes that were planned at $0.8M per mile and end up costing $12M per mile. Then they cry about how they don’t have enough money.
The area is expanding light rail which is similar to BART. However, the projects are already late and going over budget. The portion across Lake Washington already used up the reserve budget in planning. They haven’t even started construction.
The amount of negligence and budget malpractice is scary.
Because many of the city’s systems and services (eg. public transport, commercial activity, vibrant lifestyle options, etc) were provided specifically for their employees. Sure, jobs are most important, but taking on growth carries additional costs and sometimes companies don’t deserve all the freebies they are getting. It’s just like the “whining” we hear about people wanting to live in desirable, expensive areas but not wanting to pay for it.
Bezos made a choice to put Amazon in the city of Seattle specifically for its urban characteristics, and the same applies to the HQ2 search criteria. Whereas the Seattle office/SLU started from scratch, it is apparent from his top two choices (NYC, DC suburbs) that Bezos does not have the time or the inclination to go through this process again, and thus prefers a well-established location with room for growth. However, he still seems very reluctant to accept the responsibility that goes with having a presence there, which may be why Bellevue is coming back into the picture this time around.
You say that Seattle revenues have gone up by 40% (source?). What about the costs of 40% increase in population (500K to 700K since 1994)? The 70% increase in housing prices, or 50% increase in homeless kids in public schools in 6 years? Amazon has been spoiled by Seattle’s regressive tax system of no personal or corporate income taxes, only business and occupancy taxes. It is a tax system where an individual who makes $25K income pays 18% tax on average, while one who makes $250K pays about 4%. As for Amazon, is it not enough that they paid no federal income tax, but received a $137 million refund for last year? This leads to the flip side of your question:
Why should taxpayers be responsible for contributing to Amazon’s corporate welfare package?
3 Likes
You should research what a dump south lake Union was before. How much of the revenue growth is from redevelopment of land into high value office towers? It’s a massive financial windfall for the city. They didn’t invest the money upgrading the land yet they get much higher property tax revenue.
What freebies is the company getting? For NYC, the tax benefit was $3B while it was expected to generate $27B in additional revenue. Now they won’t get that $27B.
The tax revenue and population is 2010 to 2017. If you want to pick 1994, the budget was $1.5B and now it’s $5.6B. So it’s up almost 4x vs 40% population growth.
What point are you trying to make about housing prices and homeless kids? The higher home values only help increase property tax revenue. It gives the city even more money.
As long as the city blows $12M on 1 mile of bicycle lanes, they don’t deserve more money. It’s impossible to argue that the problem is lack of revenue when it’s so blatantly mismanaged.
As a homeowner (and landlord), rising house prices and increased property tax revenue sound great. But renters who whose wages have stagnated at the lower end of the pay scale have been hit hard. You would think it obvious, the connection between housing prices and homeless kids in the schools… Here’s an example of another study which shows again how these price pressures have pushed people onto the streets, especially in NYC, Seattle and LA:
One-bedroom apartment rents in King County have climbed 53 percent to $1,580 per month over the last five years, according to Dupre + Scott Apartment Advisors. For every 5 percent increase, 258 people in Seattle become homeless, a Zillow study found.
Similarly, consultant McKinsey & Co. recently concluded that the runup in housing costs was 96 percent
This is a problem that can deteriorate the city’s health like a cancer if ignored: It costs nearly four times more to care for and treat someone living on the street than it does to care for that same person once he or she has a home.
When affordability levels reach a level where 32%+ of income is needed for rent, homelessness takes off at an accelerated rate.
So, not only are increased revenues offset by spiraling costs and inflation, the problem runs further out of control when tax policies exacerbate income inequality.
Yes, Seattle was transformed thanks to Amazon, and Seattle played its part as hometown to the company’s amazing success. It’s a practical move if anything for them to be more proactive in maintaining the healthy greater community in which the company thrives rather than resisting measures to do it.
This was a long post, and its all I have on this topic.
1 Like
I could build a building for half the price without zoning and building restrictions. Don’t blame taxpayers and landlords blame city regulations and nimbyies
1 Like