[boomka]

All of that would be true in any other location. One could argue other locations actually need such infrastructure more. Amazon was not hiding the fact that they would build HQ2 anyways, and in USA. There was absolutely no need to donate them taxpayer money for it. And if you do, then taxpayer should own the infrastructure, with Amazon paying for use.

[chrisseaton]

No I mean that the competition may have motivated cities to create better offers of infrastructure to compete. If they all sat back and said 'well Amazon will have to go somewhere we won't bother making any effort' that may not have happened, and Amazon would be less efficient and the whole country would earn less.

For example some cities were proposing building things like extra train stations, which benefit everyone, and aren't something Amazon could have done privately.

[jopsen]

There is a difference between building public infrastructure and giving tax-exemptions..

Public infrastructure is available to all.. why can't the public finance it without Amazon?

[chrisseaton]

> why can't the public finance it without Amazon?

Cities may have been hoping that with Amazon moving into a region they would have extra tax receipts which would enable spending they would not have been able to afford before.