4 ms·

> how much they have strained the infrastructure in Seattle You could rephrase this as "How much Seattle's entrenched interests have crippled the city's growth

> how much they have strained the infrastructure in Seattle You could rephrase this as "How much Seattle's entrenched interests have crippled the city's growth". How many towns and cities would love to have the problem of too many jobs?

gowld 8y ago
It's not "too many jobs"; it's Washington state voters voting down income tax and transit initiatives that Seattle sorely needs.
- briandear 8y ago
  So cut other spending. There is a 100% chance that there is money being mispent somewhere else. When a family has a budget, they can’t go over that budget: they cut expenses and prioritize. Governments are unwilling to do that because they somehow feel that every single expenditure is “vital.”
- blang 8y ago
  It's not so much that voters are voting down income tax as progressive income taxes are illegal in the state of washington[1]. Though Seattle has tried[2]. You are right though that in some cases the voters have voted down income tax initiatives [3]. [1] https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/local-income-taxes-are-illegal-in-washington-state https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/local-i... [2] https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/11/22/25581262/superior-court-judge-rules-against-seattle-income-tax-appeal-on-the-way https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/11/22/25581262/superio... [3] http://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/election/article113515583.html http://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/election...
vkou 8y ago
If Seattle didn't get a single new tech job opening from any of the big-4 tech corps in the next five years (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft), the city would be fine. It would be more then fine. There is no shortage of economic opportunity in it. Expanding their offices puts costs on existing city residents. It's all well and good that tens of thousands of new units to house these workers are being built, but those units also require extra infrastructure funding. Amazon wants this cost to be 100% borne by Seattle city residents. Unsurprisingly, Seattle city residents aren't interesting in bearing it (On top of the %8 YoY rent increases many of them are seeing.) Amazon earns what, half a million dollars a year for every new engineer that they hire? Whereas the city gets stuck with a $XY,000 infrastructure bill for supporting that engineer's apartment - money that ends up being squeezed out of existing residents. I do work for one of the big-four in Seattle, and I absolutely believe that they, or their employees should pay for these infrastructure improvements - not my hairdresser. I have no right to move into a neighborhood with the expectation that existing residents pay to make room for me.
- Pyxl101 8y ago
  > Expanding their offices puts costs on existing city residents. It's all well and good that tens of thousands of new units to house these workers are being built, but those units also require extra infrastructure funding. Property taxes and permits are designed to raise the funds needed to pay for infrastructure. Amazon pays them. According to the Seattle Times (1): > Amazon entities that own Seattle property are the largest and fifth-largest individual property tax payers in the city, according to government filings. At the regular rate applicable to the company’s home base in South Lake Union, that would yield a tax bill of roughly $27 million. The company also directly pays state and city business and occupation taxes, which tax the portion of Amazon’s sales attributable to in-state customers. If new construction or other activities generate costs for the city, then they should tax those activities accordingly, not complain about or discourage the activity. Seattle is capturing significant revenue this way, by its own account (2), and its tax base has been rising faster than population: > Seattle has captured an outsized share of the region’s growth during the recovery. Seattle has been the focal point of the region’s growth during the current recovery. This is reflected in taxable retail sales data (the tax base for the retail sales tax), one of the few relatively current measures of economic activity available at both the county and city levels. Over the five-year period 2010 - 2015, taxable retail sales increased by 52% in Seattle, compared to gains of 34% in the remainder of the King and Snohomish Counties, and 30% in the rest of the state, i.e., outside of the two counties (see Figure 4). Most of Seattle’s relative strength is due to a 123% increase in construction. > Seattle’s strong rebound from the recession has been supported by the growth of Amazon, other technology businesses, and business and professional service firms. Employment growth at these businesses, along with the current popularity of in-city living, has boosted the demand for office space and housing in the city, spurring a construction boom. (1) https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-paid-250-million-in-washington-state-and-local-taxes-in-2017-source-says/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-paid-250... (2) https://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/17adoptedbudget/documents/revenueoverview.pdf https://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/17adoptedbudget/do...
  - vkou 8y ago
    > Property taxes and permits are designed to raise the funds needed to pay for infrastructure. Amazon pays them. According to the Seattle Times (1): The share of property taxes that Amazon, and its employees pay do not cover the costs of building out new infrastructure to support them. It's basic mathematics. Let's say that you and four of your friends live in a 5-bedroom house. Let's say that you all pay an equal share of rent, maintenance, etc. Let's say that I decide to move into your house... And demand that we knock down an exterior wall, and build a sixth bedroom, and a second bathroom, to accommodate me (Because everyone needs a bedroom! And one bathroom doesn't cut it for 6 people - it barely supported 5!) And insist that all six of us split the cost of this construction equally. You should be happy about this - the rent-payer base has increased! Now a sixth person is chipping into paying the groundskeeper to mow the lawn. Never mind the $83,333 construction bill that the five of you had to front. It's bollocks, and it's the situation Seattle is currently in. Existing residents are expected to pick up the tab for new people moving into their neighbourhoods. Yes, taxable activity is rising faster then the cost of population, but so is the infrastructure bill. It's a lot cheaper to maintain a five-bedroom house in a steady-state, then to build an extra bedroom in it. It's a lot cheaper to maintain the city's existing infrastructure, then to expand it to meet this population growth. The only solution is making it extremely expensive to upzone commercial spaces (Which will result in shenanigans - like packing more employees into less space), or by taxing tech firms directly.

gowld 8y ago

It's not "too many jobs"; it's Washington state voters voting down income tax and transit initiatives that Seattle sorely needs.

briandear 8y ago
So cut other spending. There is a 100% chance that there is money being mispent somewhere else. When a family has a budget, they can’t go over that budget: they cut expenses and prioritize. Governments are unwilling to do that because they somehow feel that every single expenditure is “vital.”
blang 8y ago
It's not so much that voters are voting down income tax as progressive income taxes are illegal in the state of washington[1]. Though Seattle has tried[2]. You are right though that in some cases the voters have voted down income tax initiatives [3]. [1] https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/local-income-taxes-are-illegal-in-washington-state https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/local-i... [2] https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/11/22/25581262/superior-court-judge-rules-against-seattle-income-tax-appeal-on-the-way https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/11/22/25581262/superio... [3] http://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/election/article113515583.html http://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/election...

vkou 8y ago

If Seattle didn't get a single new tech job opening from any of the big-4 tech corps in the next five years (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft), the city would be fine. It would be more then fine. There is no shortage of economic opportunity in it. Expanding their offices puts costs on existing city residents. It's all well and good that tens of thousands of new units to house these workers are being built, but those units also require extra infrastructure funding. Amazon wants this cost to be 100% borne by Seattle city residents. Unsurprisingly, Seattle city residents aren't interesting in bearing it (On top of the %8 YoY rent increases many of them are seeing.) Amazon earns what, half a million dollars a year for every new engineer that they hire? Whereas the city gets stuck with a $XY,000 infrastructure bill for supporting that engineer's apartment - money that ends up being squeezed out of existing residents. I do work for one of the big-four in Seattle, and I absolutely believe that they, or their employees should pay for these infrastructure improvements - not my hairdresser. I have no right to move into a neighborhood with the expectation that existing residents pay to make room for me.

Pyxl101 8y ago
> Expanding their offices puts costs on existing city residents. It's all well and good that tens of thousands of new units to house these workers are being built, but those units also require extra infrastructure funding. Property taxes and permits are designed to raise the funds needed to pay for infrastructure. Amazon pays them. According to the Seattle Times (1): > Amazon entities that own Seattle property are the largest and fifth-largest individual property tax payers in the city, according to government filings. At the regular rate applicable to the company’s home base in South Lake Union, that would yield a tax bill of roughly $27 million. The company also directly pays state and city business and occupation taxes, which tax the portion of Amazon’s sales attributable to in-state customers. If new construction or other activities generate costs for the city, then they should tax those activities accordingly, not complain about or discourage the activity. Seattle is capturing significant revenue this way, by its own account (2), and its tax base has been rising faster than population: > Seattle has captured an outsized share of the region’s growth during the recovery. Seattle has been the focal point of the region’s growth during the current recovery. This is reflected in taxable retail sales data (the tax base for the retail sales tax), one of the few relatively current measures of economic activity available at both the county and city levels. Over the five-year period 2010 - 2015, taxable retail sales increased by 52% in Seattle, compared to gains of 34% in the remainder of the King and Snohomish Counties, and 30% in the rest of the state, i.e., outside of the two counties (see Figure 4). Most of Seattle’s relative strength is due to a 123% increase in construction. > Seattle’s strong rebound from the recession has been supported by the growth of Amazon, other technology businesses, and business and professional service firms. Employment growth at these businesses, along with the current popularity of in-city living, has boosted the demand for office space and housing in the city, spurring a construction boom. (1) https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-paid-250-million-in-washington-state-and-local-taxes-in-2017-source-says/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-paid-250... (2) https://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/17adoptedbudget/documents/revenueoverview.pdf https://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/17adoptedbudget/do...
- vkou 8y ago
  > Property taxes and permits are designed to raise the funds needed to pay for infrastructure. Amazon pays them. According to the Seattle Times (1): The share of property taxes that Amazon, and its employees pay do not cover the costs of building out new infrastructure to support them. It's basic mathematics. Let's say that you and four of your friends live in a 5-bedroom house. Let's say that you all pay an equal share of rent, maintenance, etc. Let's say that I decide to move into your house... And demand that we knock down an exterior wall, and build a sixth bedroom, and a second bathroom, to accommodate me (Because everyone needs a bedroom! And one bathroom doesn't cut it for 6 people - it barely supported 5!) And insist that all six of us split the cost of this construction equally. You should be happy about this - the rent-payer base has increased! Now a sixth person is chipping into paying the groundskeeper to mow the lawn. Never mind the $83,333 construction bill that the five of you had to front. It's bollocks, and it's the situation Seattle is currently in. Existing residents are expected to pick up the tab for new people moving into their neighbourhoods. Yes, taxable activity is rising faster then the cost of population, but so is the infrastructure bill. It's a lot cheaper to maintain a five-bedroom house in a steady-state, then to build an extra bedroom in it. It's a lot cheaper to maintain the city's existing infrastructure, then to expand it to meet this population growth. The only solution is making it extremely expensive to upzone commercial spaces (Which will result in shenanigans - like packing more employees into less space), or by taxing tech firms directly.