Ditto. My bus used to be standing room but reasonable. Now it is like the infamous Japanese trains!
True… I imagine those with land would be easier for Amazon to come to… Denver, for example, has land for the HQ and housing for Amazon workers… OTOH, it has less infrastructure and public transportation precisely because it’s less densely populated.
I live in Denver. There were 8 different places/cities for the proposed HQ, but the most likely was right downtown (Elitches), right on my train route. NO. I’m selfish and want to sit on my ride.
“Traffic was a major cluster today. I feel sorry for Atlanta if it lands the HQ.”
Have you driven in Atlanta lately? It sucks big time without Amazon there.
Oh I have driven through Atlanta in 2016. It sucked back then already. I am saying that it is going to be at least 5X worse… Which is what was happening around here.
I suppose it’s already been said, maybe by me, but we have to realize who then pays for the infrastructure improvements- you and me- while Amazon gets the tax breaks.
An even if the city somehow finds funds to make the core improvements (eg, poor Boston,) those construction jobs (and the trickle down to those who supply to them) do not affect you and me.
So unless there is an immediate benefit to you, you do not want your “status quo’ to be disrupted. Sort of what i said earlier. " I have mine so the rest can go elsewhere.”
My status quo - and I daresay, Bunsen’s- has already been disrupted. We do not have “ours.” That’s much bigger fish.
Tom, who do you really think Amazon will benefit? You, your family and neighbors? Maybe someone you know gets a job because of it. meanwhile, the Red Line is still at risk. Meanwhile, the schools are in trouble and the drug problems are huge. How does making some techies richer truly benefit the city in organic ways? Better restaurants and hotels?
The idea behind the tax incentives is the state/locality didn’t have the tax revenues which are being rebated/abated. Don’t give the tax incentives and the business locates somewhere else and you don’t have those tax revenues (at all – sometimes there are only partial rebates/abatements or for limited time periods) so you didn’t lose anything.
The business will hire employees who will pay state and local taxes. They will also need places to live, contract for home improvement projects, buy cars, and spend money locally on other goods and services. The businesses they patronize will grow (and new ones will open) resulting in more hiring, more state and local taxes and the cycle continues. So its more than just someone you know getting a job.
Tax incentives (to me) make better sense than what you saw a lot of in the past which was government entities issuing bonds or otherwise incurring debt/obligations to build facilities for the new business. If the business does not pan out as planned, the government agencies are still on the hook for the debt/obligations. With tax incentives if the business does not pan out, you do not get the benefits noted above but you weren’t getting those if the business didn’t locate in your area anyway.
Done right, tax incentives can work well. Tough to get it right though as its often more art than science. And identifying costs if often more challenging than benefits.
But in addition to the supposed growth, there is the very real cost of the improvements needed to sustain these newcomers. One way or another, that comes from ordinary citizens and their taxes. Or the fact that their needs are set aside for the projects benefiting the new company.
I think in the current economic models politicians use to project growth, they miss that most folks will not be hired by these companies, do not own restaurants, sell cars or other goods, or build condo complexes, etc. I’m really at a loss to see how ordinary people benefit. Folks who work for the U or existing employers, the local market or whatever. What changes?
And this: we had a huge incentive to lure Company X, the promise of jobs and glory. The skies would part, we’d be, so to say,“on the map.” Reality: 80% of the hires were from out of town. If anything, that’s the status quo I bemoan with these supposed big deals: no change for us, just for “them.”
The leaders and residents of Detroit probably thought they had in made with the automobile industry and that the good times would roll on forever. And then…
And that’s why Seattle residents want diversity of industries including tech. Not just Amazonbieland.
@BunsenBurner I believe that there is also a company called Microsoft headquartered somewhere in the Seattle are that shows some promise.
Thank goodness they are expanding. But they are not in Seattle. 
Tom, please, you can have the new Amazon HQ. Just be careful what you wish for. 
Hoping it’s not in Austin, which is already the pinch point of traffic in Texas.
I will be very surprised if HQ2 goes to Boston. It is too cold, and housing too expensive. I would be a lot less surprised it it goes to Atlanta, even though traffic is already terrible there.
@NJres Seattle can be cold too though and if the execs love skiing as people are saying, they are not far from weekend get aways for skiing in NH and Maine. And the Cape, Nantucket and the Vineyard in the summer. Massachusetts has a great school system. Some really nice place to live. And it has the highest concentration of coders per capita in the world in Cambridge.
I would guess the kind of skiing they are into may be mountain skiing with x-country rather than ski slope skiing. We went to a ski trip with one of those guys a long time ago. That’s what we did. It was more mountaineering than skiing. Science/tech people tend to be intense about their physical activities. Boston area activities are more of a soft kind.
For those worried about more crowded buses etc… maybe more people would be good, to justify extra buses?
People afraid of change will never get ahead. Same goes for communities and cities.