[garrettdc]

Because it doesn't fit the narrative that amazon is evil / rich people are evil / gentrification / government kick backs.

I would seriously doubt that any city would be offering this if they didn't believe that it would be net positive for their area. Between increases in property values (thereby increased taxes), number of high-income earners, and new spending from these people, they are likely to benefit from this arrangement in the longer term.

Amazon asking for competition between the various cities isn't hunger games because pillage Atlanta to increase their odds of being picked. It isn't this zero-sum game that these people want to make it out to be.

[maxsilver]

> I would seriously doubt that any city would be offering this if they didn't believe that it would be net positive for their area.

I would. What's good for a "city" is not necessarily good for the residents of that city. These are two totally different entities with their own wants and needs, that are not guaranteed to act in the others best interest. In fact, occasionally the incentives are so misaligned as to be polar opposites. For example :

> Between increases in property values (thereby increased taxes)

Increased property value is never just a "good" thing. It's an explicit tradeoff. More expensive property is "good" for the municipality government (their incomes rise), but generally bad for most actual humans (their expenses directly increase as a result of this, doubly so if they aren't wealthy enough to already own property).

> number of high-income earners, and new spending from these people,

Again, this is not a good thing, it's an explicit tradeoff. This is good for high-income earners (who can use each other to push their own careers forward), but is explicitly bad for everyone other resident, who can't.

If a bunch of "high earners" enter your market, and you yourself are not a high earner, your income remains mostly flat, but literally every cost you have has gone up significantly. (Housing, Transportation, Education, Medical, Daycare, etc). You are now competing against high-income people for almost everything, but with little-to-none of the money they have. You will loose, every time.

[garrettdc]

I get the differentiation between the city and it's residents. My comments were more in response to the overall financial benefit of the city and that they aren't just "giving away" money that can be used elsewhere. Likely these costs are offset via increased revenue elsewhere.

The idea of high-income earners driving up costs for everyone may be true as well. I don't have enough background other than anecdotal evidence to say one way or another though. Looking at price increases and any benefit changes to low income earners / low income migration from the area would be an interesting study once Amazon HQ2 gets off the ground.

[pitaj]

If it's not beneficial for the residents of the city, then you can blame government once again.

Good job government, working against your citizens' best interest.

[jellicle]

> they didn't believe that it would be net positive for their area.

The assumption that political leaders invariably make decisions that are the best for the general public is not one borne out by evidence.

> It isn't this zero-sum game

Amazon is going to expand, right? Without a doubt, and regardless of what cities do, Amazon will expand. Therefore, cities offering tax breaks is just a transfer from the general public to the shareholders of Amazon. It's not zero-sum, it's negative sum, as far as the public is concerned. It's monopoly rent.

[yndoendo]

Just because the property taxes rise to bring in more income does not create a direct benefit to the community. Often means the current occupants will be spending more on taxes versus savings or other economic endeavors.

Look how much the the original community of Silicon Valley have benefited with increased property taxes.

And there is no grantee Amazon will stay in the area once the government subsidies run out.