Why do you think that it will be to no benefit of the local population? I'm uncomfortable with this process too, but isn't it gonna be great for the city that gets chosen?
One can imagine if the bid process is sufficiently competitive & transparent, if HQ2 brings $10b in economic good, cities might bid eachother down asymptotically to offer $10b in incentives, which in net would result in nearly zero economic good for the winning city or the parent country, and transfer all that value to Amazon & it's shareholders.
There's also the concern that negative impacts are being ignored, such as increased demand on infrastructure, ala the Olympics, wherein by most accounts the winning city actually winds up economically worse-off.
I think this sort of thing results in a net loss for the public. Politicians love talking about creating jobs, but not about at what cost. Whatever city wins will be handing out subsidies and tax breaks to the point where only Amazon shareholders benefit.
There's also the concern that negative impacts are being ignored, such as increased demand on infrastructure, ala the Olympics, wherein by most accounts the winning city actually winds up economically worse-off.