Political agendas getting in the way
The decision by Amazon to open a second headquarters represents the outcome of the city council’s war on business in Seattle [“Amazon’s shopping: Company plans ‘equal’ headquarters outside Seattle,” Sept. 8, A1].
Not only are small businesses affected, but also major generators of jobs and tax revenue. The City Council fails to value these companies and instead treats their resources as a cookie jar to provide everything from a massive increase in the city budget to affordable housing.
These large employers do not have to stay in Seattle, as we have seen.
It is time for the council to get off its soapbox, stop with the political agendas and govern the city of Seattle properly.
Most Read Opinion Stories
- Seattle Times editorial board endorsements: Election 2020 presidential, national and Washington state races
- The Times recommends: Vote yes for King County charter amendments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7
- Save employers from skyrocketing unemployment tax
- The Times recommends: Vote to support trust fund for long-term care
- The Times recommends: Keep the King County sheriff an elected office
David Warth, Seattle
Change in governance
I think Amazon’s decision to announce they are looking for a second headquarters rather than a satellite office should be a major concern to city government.
Every candidate for mayor or City Council should be asked if he or she would want to have been known for being part of the city government when Amazon decided to leave Seattle.
If not, what are they going to change to make sure that doesn’t happen?
Steve Horman, Kirkland
‘Cause for relief’
So the monster that ate Seattle is looking for new feeding grounds. Is that such a tragedy? [“End of Amazon’s Seattle monogamy should be lesson to civic leaders,” Sept. 10, Opinion].
The reflexive anguish regarding the purported loss of potentially 50,000 new jobs is truly perplexing. First, the editorial laments the failure of “Seattle officials” to work hand-in-glove with our homegrown colossus toward its metastasizing hereabout even further. Then, it regretfully suggests the local penchant for pursuing such equitable policies as “taxing the rich” had something to do with scaring away our sugar daddy.
It’s news to most of us that “regional growth plans show a surplus of … residential capacity.” As we’re plainly choking on the population influxes we’re already experiencing, the company’s stated intention of increasing staffing outside of Seattle should actually be cause for relief.
Nobody gets it all, and “The Limits to Growth” (available through Amazon) remains as pertinent today as it was in 1972.
Bruce Bonifaci, Poulsbo
I hope that cities eager to lure Amazon’s second headquarters are ready for the Amazon fallout we’ve experienced in Seattle: skyrocketing housing costs that push residents out of the homebuying and rental markets; worsening traffic gridlock; an increased gap between the rich, middle class and poor; and the dulling of any unique local character that the city is desperately trying to retain.
Susan Fairo, Seattle
The editorial board struck the appropriate tone in response to Amazon’s decision to create a second headquarters elsewhere. Unfortunately, the concerns expressed fall into the category of “too little, too late.”
After a constant drumbeat of criticism, much of it in the pages of the The Seattle Times, Amazon apparently decided to seek a friendlier climate.
The anti-business attitudes for which Seattle is known (recall the history of media criticism of Microsoft) are really self-defeating. It’s ironic that the socialists and progressives who run our city government don’t understand that they need even more of other peoples’ money in order to create their urban utopia.
Those revenues come from taxes, which are obviously paid by people and businesses with incomes. A better strategy would be to welcome and collaborate with those who want to grow and share the benefits of their successful businesses in the region.
John Prueitt, Seattle