4 ms·
Arguably they're trying to divert tax monies to be spent on themselves instead of the other problems the city faces, so it is on Amazon. And they're blamed bec
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Arguably they're trying to divert tax monies to be spent on themselves instead of the other problems the city faces, so it is on Amazon.
And they're blamed because they are largely a cause of exacerbating those problems. It's not just a pure good for them to come. Like I said, they cause housing prices to skyrocket. That's on them, and the increased homelessness that would result would be on them, too.
- refurb 9y agoSorry to say, but if a city gives away so much to Amazon that it's a net negative, it's their own dam fault. Maybe they should take some negotiations or financial modeling classes. Amazon doesn't control the zoning laws, the city does. If housing prices increase, it's the city's fault. People act like Amazon is some all-powerful entity that can railroad an entity like a city council that has the power to change laws.
- telchar 9y agoYour opinion here goes beyond "caveat emptor" right to "vae victus". Although you seem to support the idea of cities bargaining with Amazon here, your statements make a good argument for cities to decline.
- bookbinder 9y agoAre you not familiar with lobbying (aka bribery)?
- s73ver_ 9y agoYes, the city would be to blame. But so would Amazon. Amazon is run by people who know right from wrong, and are fully capable of taking responsibility for their actions. Amazon absolutely shares some blame with all of those. You cannot condemn one entity for not having "personal responsibility" and ignore the responsibility the other entities have in contributing to the situation.
- refurb 9y agoLet me ask a question - let's say you had an item that you know is only worth $50. However, someone comes to you and offers $100. Will you refuse to take the $100?