quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
PJ, how much of Seattle's problem is due to Amazon, and how much is part of the general issue with housing costs in cities up and down the Pacific coastline (Vancouver, BC, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco)?

I am in total agreement with you regarding the gentrification of Seattle and the spiraling cost of housing. However, homelessness has been an issue there (and in Portland) since the 1980s (when I lived there) if not earlier. Many of the homeless are there because of friendly laws, and a desire to be homeless by choice. This does not apply to everyone, of course, and most particularly doesn't apply to those who are mentally ill.

But the housing shortage can also be attributed to Asian speculative purchases, as many of the apartments, condominiums and houses are owned by non-US residents and are vacant.

It's not an easy problem to solve.

All of these are factors. Amazon is a huge factor.

I used to pass the largest homeless camp in town, "the jungle" along I-5 just south of I-90, on my daily commute for a good ten years. It was maybe 15 or 20 tents.

Now there are dozens of camps that are much larger. And entire neighborhoods where the streets are lined with RVs.

Housing prices have tripled in many areas around here in the last ten years.

The non-resident ownership is a problem: they buy where the market is hot, and Amazon has been turning up the heat.

It is hard to nail down exactly how much of this is attributable to Amazon. The belief of much of the local population is "a lot". What is more disconcerting is Amazon's response which ranges from, at best, "not our problem" to "f*** you".

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
The New York Times editorial board wants the deal back.

quote:

Those opposed to the New York project — a distinct minority of people in the city and the state — were not without cause for rage. The subways are rickety, the schools are dysfunctional, the rent is too damn high and getting higher. And the deal included $3 billion in tax benefits for a trillion-dollar corporation.

But progressives shouldn’t stand athwart progress, yelling stop. It’s not like that $3 billion can now be applied to city needs, as some seemed to think; it vanished along with the $27 billion in tax revenue that could, in fact, have helped address city needs. If the New York has any hope of remedying its problems, it will need a robust tax base spread across many sectors. Real-world progressive governance requires revenue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...nion&pgtype=Homepage

**** them.

And, apparently, the 70% of New Yorkers who want the Amazon deal.

I read the press release.

It sounds as if you are angry about living in a democracy. If 70% of the people want something, and it's not unconstitutional, it ought to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
The New York Times editorial board wants the deal back.

quote:

Those opposed to the New York project — a distinct minority of people in the city and the state — were not without cause for rage. The subways are rickety, the schools are dysfunctional, the rent is too damn high and getting higher. And the deal included $3 billion in tax benefits for a trillion-dollar corporation.

But progressives shouldn’t stand athwart progress, yelling stop. It’s not like that $3 billion can now be applied to city needs, as some seemed to think; it vanished along with the $27 billion in tax revenue that could, in fact, have helped address city needs. If the New York has any hope of remedying its problems, it will need a robust tax base spread across many sectors. Real-world progressive governance requires revenue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...nion&pgtype=Homepage

**** them.

And, apparently, the 70% of New Yorkers who want the Amazon deal.

I read the press release.

It sounds as if you are angry about living in a democracy. If 70% of the people want something, and it's not unconstitutional, it ought to happen.

Whatever.

More details about the deal struck in Arlington were released today. Sickening.

quote:

Under the deal, Amazon is eligible for a share of Arlington County’s hotel tax revenue, which is expected to go up after the e-commerce giant comes to town. Amazon will receive 15 percent of any increase in Arlington’s Transient Occupancy Tax if the company moves into a specified amount of office space each year.

Welfare queens.

Not to mention interference with the FOIA.



It's disgusting. It's shameful. And it's sad to see politicans prostituting themselves like this.

Thank god NY has preserved some modicum of integrity and class.

Not to mention...
https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/...ero-corporate-income

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

It sounds as if you are angry about living in a democracy. If 70% of the people want something, and it's not unconstitutional, it ought to happen.

That comment sounds like a double-edged sword, no? Let's say over 70% of Seattle's residents support levying additional taxes on a class of business entities that also include Amazon.com, and Amazon.com says "**** them" on those taxes, can Amazon.com be said to be angry about domiciling in a democracy?

quote:

Originally posted by Axtremus:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

It sounds as if you are angry about living in a democracy. If 70% of the people want something, and it's not unconstitutional, it ought to happen.

That comment sounds like a double-edged sword, no? Let's say over 70% of Seattle's residents support levying additional taxes on a class of business entities that also include Amazon.com, and Amazon.com says "**** them" on those taxes, can Amazon.com be said to be angry about domiciling in a democracy?

That sort of thing happens all the time. Do you think the hotel industry cheers every time the occupancy tax is raised?

So, Amazon has put the brakes on expansion in Seattle proper. They have been (until now) quietly staking out office space in Bellevue -- Bellevue is in the first ring of outer suburbs of Seattle, on the other side of Lake Washington. A (leaked?) e-mail spilled the beans. So it seems that the kerfuffle over the head tax (to help the homeless problem) and other friction between Amazon and the city has once again led Amazon to take its ball and go elsewhere.

My take is that it will be a challenge for downtown Bellevue to absorb a huge influx. Traffic is already at a standstill for hours a day. The good news is that the buildings Amazon has picked are within a couple blocks of the transit center -- where the light rail station will be in a few years.

It will be interesting to see what demands Amazon makes of Bellevue. The Bellevue city council has a history of just rolling over at the slightest push.

I also expect the already-insane housing market in Bellevue to go even crazier. The last time I looked, the least expensive single-family house in Bellevue -- a fixer-upper to be generous -- was just under $800,000.


https://www.seattletimes.com/b...obs-in-coming-years/