5 ms·

> The city is complaining that Amazon is making some of their citizens too rich. The city would prefer that Amazon's presence has benefits for citizens as a wh

> The city is complaining that Amazon is making some of their citizens too rich. The city would prefer that Amazon's presence has benefits for citizens as a whole - or at least didn't make their live worse - rather than enriching a few. Seems reasonable to me.

TulliusCicero 7y ago
And it does: "anchor" industries are what brings in wealth in general to a city or metro area. Wages for unrelated jobs in Seattle are still higher than average. That said, the problem is that average wages don't rise as fast as the cost of living does. But that housing is so expensive is a failure of local government policies, and by extension, the voters who support those policies. Housing doesn't have to be super expensive; voters actively choose policies that make it so. People are getting what they voted for, and they're mad as hell about it.
- Angostura 7y ago
  > That said, the problem is that average wages don't rise as fast as the cost of living does. And that's presumably part of the problem > But that housing is so expensive is a failure of local government policies, and by extension, the voters who support those policies. Housing doesn't have to be super expensive. I'd be interested to know precisely which local government policies are failing here. To a naive outsider, it sounds as if its likely that well-off incomers are displacing existing populations from desirable areas/properties. What are the failures of local government housing policy? Failure to relax standards so that existing residence can move into nice high-density prefab blocks built on existing green-space?
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    Failure to allow supply to meet demand. Zoning regulations constrain how much housing can be built to a very low amount on most residential land. No surprise that prices would rise in that environment, this is barely econ 101, it's like high school level economics. Like, when demand goes straight up and supply can't go nearly as fast, what else would anyone expect? I don't understand why everyone always acts so shocked that the completely predictable happens over and over. Seattle has actually been much better about allowing more housing than some peer cities, like SF. But compared to cities in most other developed countries, the situation is still awful. For example, the kind of very low density zoning that is commonplace in Seattle literally doesn't exist anywhere in Japan or Germany. I don't think you'll find many urbanists or YIMBYs pushing to demolish greenspace like parks or trails. I'm certainly not; if anything, I'd prefer to push to acquire more greenspace, perhaps by redeveloping surface parking lots. As for housing needs, there's plenty of space where things are already developed.
    - ranman 7y ago
      Housing doesn’t fit the traditional supply/demand model b/c of the time constraint. It takes time to build housing but companies can grow and hire faster than housing can be built. You don’t want to overbuild and create ghost towns where developers go bankrupt trying to sell (a couple of these places exist in Europe, Canada, and America - I think China too but I haven’t seen it in person), but you don’t want to underbuild a la SF. So I agree with you that the zoning laws have a lot to do with it - but housing isn’t an instant commodity either - it can take many years, esp for high density projects. *typed with thumbs
      - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        It doesn't take time to build warehouses and factories?
      - JackFr 7y ago
        Housing doesn’t fit the traditional supply/demand model b/c incumbent owners are able to increase there wealth by using the power of the state to constrain supply through zoning and other regulatory means. The time constraint you mention is often artificial, six months for permitting here and two months for an impact study there. Actual construction is surprisingly fast.
      - hx87 7y ago
        Companies can't grow faster than the supply of office space, which also has time constraints.
      - TulliusCicero 7y ago
        What allows companies to hire faster than cities can grow? The companies still need office space that means more and bigger buildings, it's the same damn problem as housing. ...with one significant difference: communities are generally much more amenable to increased jobs than increased residents. And companies growing fast usually are cool with huge buildings in the city center, which is the one place where cities are generally fine with high density. Getting cities to be okay with, say, low-rise housing developments across the city is a much harder ask. So it really does just come down to zoning and zoning-adjacent concerns (e.g. community input meetings where developments get shot down).
lotsofpulp 7y ago
Then the reasonable solution is for the city to tax the enriched citizens and distribute the taxes to the rest of the citizens so that they benefit as a whole. But, what really happens, is the "city" or "city council" wants is to score political points, because a tax would also impact themselves and their friends and family. Everyone wants someone else to pay to benefit citizens as a whole, when obviously the fairest way is to pass a tax applicable to all "enriched" citizens.
- pseudalopex 7y ago
  Seattle approved an income tax a few years ago. It looks like it's still tied up in court.
- colmmacc 7y ago
  Seattle council has voted for an income tax on highly paid residents (2.25% on everything above $250k), but income taxes are nominally unconstitutional in Washington State. It's been working its way through the state courts for years. So far the lower courts have ruled that an income tax may be constitutional (this would be a first, in Washington) ... but only if the rate is equal for all earners (So the Seattle tax still fails).
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Interesting! Then their ire should be directed towards Washington state laws, not Amazon.
Nasrudith 7y ago
It brings to mind the stupid perfect enemy of the good of judging those who try to do better worse than those who don't even try in complete lack of proportion. It is like reacting to a give away of free shoes to orphans with "Those orphan shoes aren't organic, the bastards!" while ignoring the others make luxury shoes /out of/ orphans because "Blood of the Innocent" brand Cobblers always does that sort of thing.

TulliusCicero 7y ago

And it does: "anchor" industries are what brings in wealth in general to a city or metro area. Wages for unrelated jobs in Seattle are still higher than average. That said, the problem is that average wages don't rise as fast as the cost of living does. But that housing is so expensive is a failure of local government policies, and by extension, the voters who support those policies. Housing doesn't have to be super expensive; voters actively choose policies that make it so. People are getting what they voted for, and they're mad as hell about it.

Angostura 7y ago
> That said, the problem is that average wages don't rise as fast as the cost of living does. And that's presumably part of the problem > But that housing is so expensive is a failure of local government policies, and by extension, the voters who support those policies. Housing doesn't have to be super expensive. I'd be interested to know precisely which local government policies are failing here. To a naive outsider, it sounds as if its likely that well-off incomers are displacing existing populations from desirable areas/properties. What are the failures of local government housing policy? Failure to relax standards so that existing residence can move into nice high-density prefab blocks built on existing green-space?
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  Failure to allow supply to meet demand. Zoning regulations constrain how much housing can be built to a very low amount on most residential land. No surprise that prices would rise in that environment, this is barely econ 101, it's like high school level economics. Like, when demand goes straight up and supply can't go nearly as fast, what else would anyone expect? I don't understand why everyone always acts so shocked that the completely predictable happens over and over. Seattle has actually been much better about allowing more housing than some peer cities, like SF. But compared to cities in most other developed countries, the situation is still awful. For example, the kind of very low density zoning that is commonplace in Seattle literally doesn't exist anywhere in Japan or Germany. I don't think you'll find many urbanists or YIMBYs pushing to demolish greenspace like parks or trails. I'm certainly not; if anything, I'd prefer to push to acquire more greenspace, perhaps by redeveloping surface parking lots. As for housing needs, there's plenty of space where things are already developed.
  - ranman 7y ago
    Housing doesn’t fit the traditional supply/demand model b/c of the time constraint. It takes time to build housing but companies can grow and hire faster than housing can be built. You don’t want to overbuild and create ghost towns where developers go bankrupt trying to sell (a couple of these places exist in Europe, Canada, and America - I think China too but I haven’t seen it in person), but you don’t want to underbuild a la SF. So I agree with you that the zoning laws have a lot to do with it - but housing isn’t an instant commodity either - it can take many years, esp for high density projects. *typed with thumbs
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      It doesn't take time to build warehouses and factories?
    - JackFr 7y ago
      Housing doesn’t fit the traditional supply/demand model b/c incumbent owners are able to increase there wealth by using the power of the state to constrain supply through zoning and other regulatory means. The time constraint you mention is often artificial, six months for permitting here and two months for an impact study there. Actual construction is surprisingly fast.
    - hx87 7y ago
      Companies can't grow faster than the supply of office space, which also has time constraints.
    - TulliusCicero 7y ago
      What allows companies to hire faster than cities can grow? The companies still need office space that means more and bigger buildings, it's the same damn problem as housing. ...with one significant difference: communities are generally much more amenable to increased jobs than increased residents. And companies growing fast usually are cool with huge buildings in the city center, which is the one place where cities are generally fine with high density. Getting cities to be okay with, say, low-rise housing developments across the city is a much harder ask. So it really does just come down to zoning and zoning-adjacent concerns (e.g. community input meetings where developments get shot down).

lotsofpulp 7y ago

Then the reasonable solution is for the city to tax the enriched citizens and distribute the taxes to the rest of the citizens so that they benefit as a whole. But, what really happens, is the "city" or "city council" wants is to score political points, because a tax would also impact themselves and their friends and family. Everyone wants someone else to pay to benefit citizens as a whole, when obviously the fairest way is to pass a tax applicable to all "enriched" citizens.

pseudalopex 7y ago
Seattle approved an income tax a few years ago. It looks like it's still tied up in court.
colmmacc 7y ago
Seattle council has voted for an income tax on highly paid residents (2.25% on everything above $250k), but income taxes are nominally unconstitutional in Washington State. It's been working its way through the state courts for years. So far the lower courts have ruled that an income tax may be constitutional (this would be a first, in Washington) ... but only if the rate is equal for all earners (So the Seattle tax still fails).
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Interesting! Then their ire should be directed towards Washington state laws, not Amazon.

Nasrudith 7y ago

It brings to mind the stupid perfect enemy of the good of judging those who try to do better worse than those who don't even try in complete lack of proportion. It is like reacting to a give away of free shoes to orphans with "Those orphan shoes aren't organic, the bastards!" while ignoring the others make luxury shoes /out of/ orphans because "Blood of the Innocent" brand Cobblers always does that sort of thing.