
Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain? - rohanshah
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/22/amazon-headquarters-shortlist-hq2/
======
zaroth
I completely disagree with the “race to the bottom” framing of the idea that
cities shouldn’t compete to provide the best services for the commercial
enterprises which reside there.

At the 50-75 year timeframe we are talking about at least hundreds of billions
of dollars of economic value, if not trillions. The clustering effect of
becoming Silicon Valley 2 cannot be overstated.

My personal opinion is cities should be talking about the Billions they will
be committing to supporting infrastructure improvements rather than the
billions in tax cuts. HQ2 needs a fuck ton of support systems, akin to
building an Olympic City which never shuts down.

Of _course_ city governments should be working hard to bring this kind of
value creation and massive economic engine to their constituents. Of _course_
Amazon should be asking tough questions of cities akin to “and what are you
going to do to support me” before spending $5 billion building a new campus.

Personally I think the cities that only have tax incentives to offer will not
come out the winner. Amazon cares a lot more about the surrounding
infrastructure and ecosystem than a short term $1 Billion.

It’s completely irrational anti-capitalistic knee jerking to whine that cities
shouldn’t be working hard to support HQ2 in their backyard. We are watching
capitalism at its _finest_ here folks - and market efficiency driving
negotiation and competition is creating significantly better outcomes than the
“fuck Amazon they don’t need handouts” crowd would arrive at.

If someone came to your town and said, I want to build a $20m community arts
center with a theater, coworking space, parks, gardens, and playground — would
you want your town to say “good luck with that” or would you want them to say
“that’s amazing what do you need from us to make that happen?!” Just because
Amazon happens to be for-profit, their presence in your city is an
extraordinary asset and it makes perfect sense to entice them to come.

In fact, you can’t even consider building at anywhere near HQ2 scale without
an intimate partnership with the host city which is, in one form or another,
going to require somewhere on the order of dollar-for-dollar public investment
to match the private investment. We’ve proven that this public/private
partnership is basically _the most effective_ growth engine we’ve got. I
certainly hope my city would do everything possible to roll out the red
carpet. It’s the most effective dollars they could possibly spend, because
it’s effectively corporate matching of public funds.

~~~
maxsilver
> Just because Amazon happens to be for-profit, their presence in your city is
> an extraordinary asset

It's not though. You purposefully used examples of public or non-profit groups
to make it sound like a benefit. But it's not. A more fair comparison would
read:

It's like someone came to your town and I said, "I want to build a $20m
McDonalds, Mobile Gas Station, WalMart and a Best Buy". I would _hope_ your
town says "good luck with that" and not "that's amazing, how should we corrupt
the local market to make it easier for you to do that". Amazon is no different
in any way except scale.

In a sane world, Amazon HQ2 would _terrify_ cities, who will need to ensure
they have _extra_ taxes in place for Amazon, to ensure the city can handle the
massive pollutions Amazon HQ2 will generate in the local housing markets,
local economy, and local infrastructure.

> We’ve proven that this public/private partnership is basically the most
> effective growth engine we’ve got

 _Proven_? Can you cite some examples? I've only seen "Public/private
partnerships" used as a label to mask corruption and theft; as a way to
socialize any losses but privatize any gains.

~~~
dumbfounder
Amazon workers are highly paid, thus bringing the average income up, and
contributing to taxes, strengthening the housing market, and much more. That's
interesting that you call it pollution. High paying tech jobs are pollution?
That doesn't compute to me.

Companies that compete for talent will be pissed, but for lots of others it's
a huge win. The only way I see it as a "bad" thing is if you are in a small
city that wants to remain small.

It's absolutely nothing like building a McDonalds.

~~~
vvanders
> strengthening the housing market, and much more. That's interesting that you
> call it pollution.

Talk to anyone who grew up in Seattle or SF pre-tech boom and you might find a
different perspective. I think it's worth considering that while it's great
for us in tech it's not like it's a net-win for everyone else.

If you work in an industry outside of tech(or a part of tech that doesn't
track payscales like the game industry) you may get pushed out of a city/metro
just by nature of the impact tech has.

~~~
Johnny555
But on the flip side, I can't imagine that people living in Detroit were
thrilled by the decades of urban decay there.

I think I'd rather live in a city that's so popular that infrastructure can't
keep up than to live in a city where entire neighborhoods are empty and are
razed due to neglect and criminal activities.

~~~
Chaebixi
It's not a binary choice. The sweet spot is in the middle.

~~~
Johnny555
but sometimes it is a binary choice. Leaders can see their community dying
after the former big industry left -- with lots of luck and years of a strong
economy they _may_ be able to attract some replacement industries that keep
the town prosperous (but not not overly so).

Or they can hit the "Amazon lottery", bringing in billions of dollars of
investment and 50,000 high paid jobs (plus all of the ancillary jobs to
support these high paid workers).

So a community could very well face a binary choice.

~~~
dragonwriter
> and 50,000 high paid jobs

Er, “as many as 50,000 high-paying jobs” is what Amazon claims HQ2 is planned
to grow to over an unspecified time horizon. “As many as...” is marketing
weasel words for “for some number definitely not exceeding, and probably
_much_ smaller than...”; it sets an upper bound, but counts on people treating
it as an expected level.

------
root_axis
Because the cities are rivals in a competition for Amazon's HQ, not colleagues
who all stand to benefit from a collective bargain. In this case, there will
be _one_ winner so the incentive to cooperate is greatly diminished.

~~~
thesumofall
But the chosen city would win even more if they were to cooperate. Sure, the
cooperation would quickly break down but that is why the federal government
should decide on such benefits (basically to ensure companies stay within the
country, if that is deemed beneficial) rather than local government. It’s for
me mindbaffling how anyone believes HQ2 would bring back billions of USD -
even if you include secondary and tertiary effects

~~~
cortesoft
Right, but there is always going to be the incentive to defect; if 19 of the
cities agree to cooperate, the 20th can just offer slightly more and win the
contract.

------
Animats
_(suggested) competing cities form a non-aggression pact_

That's been suggested before at the state level. But it runs into a
Constitutional limitation. Interstate compacts have to be approved by
Congress. Article I, Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of
Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." US
cities are legally parts of states, not standalone entities.

Trying to get an anti-business deal like that through the current Congress
would not work.

~~~
Cyberdog
Does this apply to municipalities?

~~~
Chaebixi
>> US cities are legally parts of states, not standalone entities.

A city is a municipality.

------
mynegation
I commend the position of Toronto's mayor John Tory who said (I am
paraphrasing here): "no tax breaks, if you come - come based on our merits as
a city alone".

Toronto is not likely to get Amazon for various reason (political climate
being probably more important than tax breaks)

~~~
apercu
To clarify, you mean the current US political climate?

In all honesty, unless Amazon was going to go to Mississauga or Markham or
something like that, I'd rather not have them. We need more jobs in the burbs,
not more pressures on the inadequate Toronto infrastructure.

~~~
mynegation
Sauga and Markham are outside of Toronto municipality and - strictly speaking
- are already not on the list. From the shortlist, they do not look like
something Amazon is shooting for. They are in Seattle proper, not Kent or
Everett.

Yes, I mean US political climate. Ontario Provincial govt created the
commission headed by Ed Clark and issued a bunch of statements[1], but I had
the impression that above city level they are like whatever.

[1] [https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2018/01/statement-from-
premie...](https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2018/01/statement-from-premier-
wynne-and-minister-del-duca-on-amazons-hq2-shortlist.html)

~~~
apercu
Sorry I wasn't clear. Yes, I know they aren't considering the burbs. But if
they were (Toronto burbs, at least Mississauga, are something like the 30th
largest cities in NA)it would be better than jamming Amazon and 50k employees
in to Toronto.

------
tc
Collective bargaining is probably the wrong metaphor. This is the principle-
agent problem.

The citizens would be better off if the elected officials worked to make their
city the best possible place to do business for all companies on an even
playing field. The city would then attract plenty of good companies simply on
its merits.

The elected officials instead benefit from granting favors, being able to brag
about how they brought in a big name like Amazon, and getting Jeff Bezos on
their personal speed dial.

This is also why collective bargaining will not happen here. The interests of
the elected officials are not at all aligned. They're competing for a scarce
resource, and they themselves largely do not bear the costs of trying to
acquire it.

~~~
walshemj
You would need every state to have the same income and sales tax then.

------
kevin_b_er
Because it is a race to the bottom. Who can sacrifice the most tax dollars NOW
for a hope at more down the line?

This reminds me of how NFL operates at extracting huge concessions and
expenses from cities for the privilege of having their team stay in town.

~~~
grasshopperpurp
That's what I thought of, as well. It's always a terrible deal for the city.

------
alkonaut
Here's an idea: don't let states make targeted tax breaks to race to the
bottom. That seems to work in the EU. Apple paid 1% in Ireland and simply had
to pay up the difference to the normal tax rate.

~~~
doggydogs94
Don’t let ... The only one that can do that is the US Supreme Court.

~~~
alkonaut
Somehow it always ends up there, like that's a "legal no go". I.e. "that would
have to go through the supreme court" or "that's the constitution". I realize
it's _hard_ to change some things (like how is Gerrymandering for political
views allowed?) but is it _that hard_ that it's meaningless to attempt?
Doesn't that mean (in the case of the Gerrymandering example) that US
democracy is fundamentally broken AND can't be repaired?

~~~
walshemj
Passing an amendment to the constitution is very hard.

------
kodablah
Because the non-collusive city will come out ahead in this prisoner dilemma.

~~~
bryanlarsen
This isn't a prisoner's dilemma, the cities are allowed to talk to each other,
and to gang up to punish those who break ranks.

~~~
guyzero
What possible penalty could one city impose on another?

~~~
matte_black
Imagine a future where cities go to war with each other to win the favor of
massive corporations.

~~~
rlanday
More relevant to the topic under discussion would be a future where cities go
to war to keep each other from winning the favor of massive corporations.

------
nordsieck
Seems like a pretty dumb idea. Amazon is limiting its self to those 20 cities.
It can always back out and choose another if it wants.

~~~
optimuspaul
I tend to agree that this is a dumb idea... but think about this. There are a
few clusters on the east coast, the clusters could work together to push
amazon to one of the other cities in exchange for deals that help the others
out.

If I'm being totally honest though I don't think there is much advantage to
any of the cities to give Amazon incentives to picking them. I also think that
Amazon has already decided.

~~~
strebler
That's definitely possible they've already more or less decided. Either way,
they're pulling off an impressive optimization to obtain maximum taxpayer
funded subsidies.

------
OrBaruk
Because city number 21 will race to the bottom and win the bid.

~~~
virmundi
Is this a race to the bottom? 19 cities won’t get any tax revenue by
definition. The one that gets the building will probably wave taxes so it’s
getting the same amount of direct tax revenue as it was before namely 0. So
the city does get sales tax revenue from the new jobs due to new spending. It
might get income tax that it didn’t get before. Where is the bottom?

~~~
sjm-lbm
If a city waves taxes for Amazon, they'll still have increased costs - say,
increased road maintenance around HQ2 as those roads get used much more. Those
costs still need to be paid for, and the burden will then move to smaller
companies with less clout to negotiate a special deal.

Trying to get an ever-increasing amount of money out of people and
organizations with less ability to pay that amount of money seems bottomish
for me.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
They also have the opportunity to collect payroll, income, property and sales
taxes in respect of the employees; seed a technology district; and collect
taxes down the road. It wouldn't make sense for San Francisco to do this. But
it can make sense for a Tier 2 city to pay Amazon for densification over
sinking a similar cost into the riskier proposition of renovating a downtown
plaza or whatever.

------
nielsole
The reason is game theory. Every city has an incentive to leave the bargaining
group and make its own proposal.

Taxes in general are a similar topic.

In a functioning democracy, the government/legislator should set the taxes as
they see fit, yet with increasing globalization, countries become price takers
([https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pricetaker.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pricetaker.asp)),
because many taxable goods become more mobile.

This is in line with this observation:

> Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., has also offered a dissent to the process.

> “Something is deeply wrong with our economy & democracy when local
> government offer up their

> tax base to a corporation worth over $500 billion,” he wrote on Twitter.

Game theoretic constructs, where the social optimum solution is not reached
can be seen in other topics as well. Take climate change for example, where a
lot of governments know what the best outcome for the world(and thereby
themselves) is, yet act in their own best interest and emit CO2. A collective
"bargaining" solution would make sense, but has yet to happen.

Finding solutions for this is challenging and not as easy as the article puts
it.

~~~
dragontamer
> The reason is game theory. Every city has an incentive to leave the
> bargaining group and make its own proposal.

Except 3: Montgomery County, Washington DC, and Northern Virginia.

If Virginia gets Amazon, the other two benefit with increased commercial
activity. Even if the taxes aren't directly collected from Amazon HQ2, the
increased shopping, increased services, and all that will lead to major
benefits for the entire region.

There's one group that can collectively bargain, and benefit even if its
rivals win over. That gives that particular group a major edge.

Its unusual that three of the top20 positions are within a 20-mile radius.
Amazon must be really considering that area.

[https://i0.wp.com/www.thedailychronic.net/wp-
content/uploads...](https://i0.wp.com/www.thedailychronic.net/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/Map-of-Maryland-highlighting-Montgomery-
County1.png?w=1024)

"Northern Virginia" is basically Arlington. As you can see, Arlington / DC /
Montgomery County are literally next to each other.

\------

Newark NJ and New York City are the other city-grouping that could work
together on the Amazon deal.

------
squozzer
If the benefits would split 20 ways, collective bargaining might work. But it
doesn't seem that they would, especially given the geographical dispersion of
the finalists.

Regions (such as US Northeast, or Nashville - Atlanta - Raleigh) might be able
to assemble a useful coalition to share the bennies and any pains.

Not sure if BOS and NYC wouldn't stab each other in the back.

~~~
Bartweiss
> _If the benefits would split 20 ways, collective bargaining might work._

I'm shocked to not see this objection in the article or elsewhere in the
comment section. If the shortlist were final and cooperation could be
enforced, collective bargaining would _still_ only work if the top 20 cities
all had a similar chance without perks.

As is, some of the cities would obviously be out of the running in a no-perks
race, so collective bargaining (even over many iterations with many companies)
is a clear loser for them. That undermines the entire proposal. It could be
repaired if strong contenders like DC agreed to let weaker contenders offer
perks up to parity with the strongest players, but that's vastly less
plausible or easy to calculate than "no perks".

------
intrasight
I just hope they don't come here to Pittsburgh. For the vast majority of
citizens, the arrival of Amazon HQ2 will be a net negative.

------
walshemj
The main reason is the devolved nature of government in the USA in the UK
Amazon would have its arm twisted by the government in a you scratch my back
ill scratch yours.

For example BT had development centres in all 4 countries that make up the UK
mainly for political reasons - and why the BBC forcibly moved people to
Manchester as part of the negations over the BBC charter.

------
CodeSheikh
Odds are in favor of Virginia (look up AWS and other data centers in that
area). But it is still interesting to see how these cities are competing with
each other and are throwing out tax payers money to lure in Amazon to moving
in their backyard. I wonder if they would give similar incentives to small and
upcoming businesses and startups.

~~~
bpicolo
I'm not sure the data centers have an effect there. They don't have need for
their non-datacenter employees traveling to visit the DCs (those are hyper
locked down)

------
yumario
I found this whole competition for Amazon absurd. Lets think about the
prisoner dilemma:

    
    
        If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves 2 years in prison
        If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve 3 years in prison (and vice versa)
        If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge)
    

Now A, B are cities and the can compete(betray) or not compete(stay silent).
If they both compete (1th case) is the worst outcome because Amazon does not
need a tax break or incentives. It's one of the richest companies in world
already!

A competes, B does not (2th case). Good for city A because they can offer an
small incentive an still get Amazon, bad for city B.

A and B do not compete. Good for both as the overall economy of the country
would improve.

------
mikeash
Because they’re all starry-eyed about the possibility and don’t care what it
costs.

I live in the DC area. We’re on the list three times: DC itself, plus VA and
MD suburbs. The prospect of cooperating on a bid was brought up, but they’re
not willing to do it. They want to win and they want it all for themselves.

------
lucas_membrane
Large corporations often make deals with other large corporations, and they
prosper. Workers used to do better when a larger percentage of them
collectively bargained. But somehow, the possibility that citizens, who are
represented by various local governments, would use those governments to
cooperate with each other across the lines on the map sounds like science-
fiction and is disparaged as far-fetched and unworkable in many of the
comments here. What is it that Americans don't understand?

Do they understand that Seattle, home of HQ1, has home-grown homelessness that
is rising?

Do they understand that Amazon will automate away any job outside the
executive suite that it can?

Do they understand the power that Amazon will have over the lucky city that
makes the investment?

Do they understand that 50 years is now the standard term for the tax breaks
that Amazon will be offered?

~~~
matchbok
Homelessness is not Amazon's problem.

Automation is good. Do you want us to ride horses to work?

Agreed.

Agreed.

~~~
jknoepfler
I certainly don't want you riding a car into a crowded downtown. I personally
walked to work in downtown Seattle (to Amazon, ironically). I'd vote for any
local candidate who pushed for an aggressive pedestrian-only zone in the city
with a strategy for expanding mass transit access and park and rides. The
technology for affordable mass transit is almost a century old; I think
incremental, sustainable progress on that technology is better than anything
the Tesla has to offer. Wide-spread single-user cars are one of the worst
things to happen to this country.

And homelessness can, in fact, be reasonably construed as Amazon's problem (or
a problem caused by Amazon if we're a city thinking of letting Amazon in). The
exacerbation of homelessness is an externality caused in part by Amazon's
concentration of high-wage jobs in a small city and the subsequent
skyrocketing of property values combined with mindless gentrification. So it's
both a cause for concern when courting Amazon, and it's a form of pollution
that they bring to town that it is not a priori unreasonable to hold them
accountable for (to the extent that they are responsible for it).

~~~
philwelch
Cars are pretty terrible, but horses are even worse, if you can imagine it.

Think about all the traffic problems with cars, except the street is covered
ankle-deep in manure. And you can't install catalytic converters in their
butts to reduce pollution, either.

~~~
bomb199
I'd like to think if our main form of transport was horses, we'd have solved
this problem.

~~~
ravitation
We'd have invented cars... And that's what we did.

------
rdlecler1
Because Amazon will make a point to go to the one or two defectors. Iterated
Prisoners Dilema dynamics only work when you have iterated interactions. In
large economies where you don’t have repeated interaction with other players
there is incentive to cheat.

------
Bud
This is so charmingly naive. I'll tell you why they don't collectively
bargain. Because what will happen is, one or more of the cities will take
advantage, cut a backroom deal, and win. That's why.

------
kazinator
> _and instead collectively bargained with the company?_

Because they are not a collective; only one of them gets Amazon HQ2.

Let's project this to actual "collective bargaining" in labour. If you and 19
other people were negotiating in such a way that only one of you gets a raise
and improved working conditions, and the remaining nineteen others get fired,
would you still engage in "collective bargaining"?

------
arikrak
Answer: Since there's no way all the cities in the US and Canada would
actually agree to such a pact, so Amazon will just pick one of the remaining
cities.

I agree that cities should not be offering free land to a company. But it
seems OK to offer tax breaks, considering how much taxes a company like Amazon
will be paying in the long term. (Not to mention the even more significant
taxes the employees will pay.)

------
samlevine
Because Amazon could build their own city if they had to. The US has a lot of
land, power and freeways leading to international airports.

------
disease
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by
gum, it put them on the map!" -Jeff Bezos

------
chaostheory
For reasons already pointed out by others, this isn't a pragmatic idea. i.e.
Amazon could just restart their search, etc..

imo what's more realistic is that cities on the top 20 list that are
geographically close enough, should band together and offer combined benefits
e.g. New York & Newark; Montgomery County & N Virginia & DC

------
throwaway5752
Because they don't have any leverage in this situation. I read the article, I
don't see how this fundamental reality can be worked around. City Y has no
disincentive to undercut City X until the NPV of HQ2 is equal to the cost of
their incentive package. This is just a reverse auction process.

------
mlinksva
Nevermind collective bargaining; company-specific incentives should be
illegal.

------
LonelyStapler
Each city could select a champion and hold a tournament for victory and glory!

------
jroseattle
This entire thought process assumes that tax incentives and such are the
difference maker in this process. That it's an auction that goes to the
highest bidder. This is highly inconsistent with Amazon's approach for long-
term projects.

Do they want their HQ2 home to have some skin in the game? For sure. But what
form does that take?

Suppose a city could offer Amazon $50MM in tax credits over some duration of
time. Suppose another city offered to invest into local infrastructure
investment -- roads, transit, broadband, etc. While $50MM is a lot of money
(even to Amazon), the second alternative is much more appealing.

The HQ2 winner is going to be someone who is forward-thinking, not just
whoever rounded up the best gift basket.

~~~
notyourday
I say biggest gift basket wins. Newark, NJ

------
debt
I can see it now: "Amazon HQ2 Candidate Cities Decide to Collectively
Bargain."

"Boise, Idaho - previously not even in the running - is officially the home of
the new Amazon HQ2!"

------
znpy
If you don't want cities and states to beg companies with tax exemptions then
you should not have such tax exemption ability in the first place.

------
bcaulfield
Or maybe think like a corporate raider: buy a substantial piece of a company
and demand it move to your city?

------
mathattack
Too much incentive for 1 of 20 to break ranks. The cities won’t have a good
way to punish the scab

------
elbasti
Because cooperation only happens in the repeated version of the prisoner's
dilemma.

------
doggydogs94
I feel confident that Amazon will not pick a place with cold weather or
hurricanes.

------
stretchwithme
Because there are other cities not in these 20.

------
nostromo
Might this violate antitrust law?

------
thebiglebrewski
Just want to add the opinion to the comments section that I think it's
completely ridiculous that Amazon gets incentives from cities to go there, as
if they need the money. This is monopolistic behavior to the detriment of
cities, citizens, and smaller firms.

~~~
berbec
Tell that to major sports teams. Want to see real hostage taking? See what
happens when a team wants a new stadium.

~~~
perkee
There is a fantastic pair of episodes of Citations Needed on exactly this
topic. They cover the Olympics, HQ2, and sports stadiums. And you're right:
city after city gives the whole farm away for these big ticket things that
never really pay out, and cities can't deficit spend the way a country can to
eat the loss.

CN 19 [https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/citations-
needed/e/52555894](https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/citations-
needed/e/52555894)

CN 20 [https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/citations-
needed/e/52636015](https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/citations-
needed/e/52636015)

------
40acres
I don't understand people who are conflating the search for HQ2 with Olympic
bids and sports stadium bids. The Olympics are most likely a one time thing
for a month, although in the future I could forsee it revolving around
qualified sites, it takes a lot to convert facilities used for the Olympics
into regular infrastucture (see Atlanta and LA).

Stadiums I think overall have a better impact, as they can create or
revitalize an economic area, provide longer terms jobs, and sports teams
provide back to their communities.

Amazon is on a completely different level. They will bring thousands of
skilled workers, and generate trillions in economic activity. HQ2 will stand
for a long time, it can completely change the trajectory of a city. There are
many many issues with bringing Amazon to your city, home prices and
infrastructure to name a few -- but isn't this a problem you'd rather have
than not?

~~~
tbirrell
As someone who will probably never work at Amazon, or in any way benefit from
their presence, the issues of housing prices and infrastructure are important
to me. I'm not willing to pay an effective Amazon-tax in both my rent and
commute time for for the dubious honor of saying I live in the same city as
HQ2.

~~~
TheCowboy
I'm not a fan of cities dishing out perks, but what you said amounts to
NIMBYism. I'm sympathetic to those concerns but housing prices aren't solved
by keeping out newcomers or being against development. There can also be an
indirect income boost that comes with an increased demand for labor, and it
can help make the local economy more robust.

I do think the concern about unforeseen infrastructure costs are warranted,
especially if a city doesn't excel in urban planning or has problems with
NIMBYism derailing good plans. But I think most of the cities on the shortlist
are fair game and could handle a project of this scale.

~~~
apercu
What is the problem with NYMBYism? Why is that a bad word?

Because a bunch of jerks in SV won't let more housing go in?

~~~
ghaff
Because it's a cheap, lazy insult to throw out at people who have different
preferences than you do. It originally applied more to things like power
plants that we collectively need but that basically no one wants to live next
to. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with a city not wanting an Amazon HQ
because of its impact on current residents when plenty of other places do.

~~~
apercu
> Because it's a cheap, lazy insult to throw out at people who have different
> preferences than you do.

Agreed.

