What's missing from most articles (this one included) is any kind of analysis of whether tax breaks make sense for the states in question. It bothers me how it's presented as the state giving $5B of its own cash away to Amazon, as if that money could go to the homeless instead. Presumably there are ways to estimate the economic effects of 50,000 jobs + tax breaks. Is there a reason they're not mentioned?
Correct, that piece is missing from the article. And the answer to that question is that a tax break is effectively a form of financing, so why not let Amazon (or other major corporations) be on the hook for the note? Even when that financing is paid by future tax revenues, every tax payer in the region will sign up involuntarily for a little piece of that debt. For smaller projects, this incentive mechanism makes sense. However, HQ2 will create an enormous "supply chain pull" on every aspect of government, and those costs are impossible to accurately assess. Ignore any economists projections, those are worth less than the paper they are printed on when it comes to guaranteeing billions in public debt.
Here is a fun question:, are these grass roots anti-amazon campaigns being boosted/funded by the few remaining cities in the running as a means to sabotage the other cities bids, from the inside?? The campaign leaders may not even know the real answer to that. Thats what I would do if I were Chicago!