Hacker News Reader

Comment by robbiemitchell | Hacker News Reader

NYT walked through a process of elimination and concluded it will be Denver.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/09/upshot/where-...

I was happy to see that Denver pitched Amazon with talent and not tax incentives [1]. I think most in Colorado would be perfectly happy if Denver didn't win and would be very unhappy if Denver won by giving tax breaks.

- [1] https://www.denverpost.com/2017/10/18/amazon-headquarters-co...

I live in CO but not front range and the front range population impacts the entire state from natural resources to transportation and recreation. When it comes down to it I would be OK if Denver didn't win though at the same time feel as if that's squandering growth and cool things for my own personal gains. Ultimately if Amazon adds 25-50K population to the front range that's a drop in the bucket of the already ~4.4M citizens living there.

When you deliberately choose not to live in a city and that city has impacts both near and far that affect you it's tough to want them to grow much especially considering their already large problems.

> Ultimately if Amazon adds 25-50K population to the front range

I think that if Amazon moved out here, the ultimate increase in population would be a lot more than the 50k potential hires that Amazon is advertising on the tin. That also creates a ton of jobs in the surrounding areas for the various amenities that people working at Amazon can afford, and you need people to work those jobs.

I live inbetween Boulder and Denver -- that's my sentiment. I really don't want Amazon to move in, and I'd be even more unhappy with it if we do ultimately give some terrible incentives (terrible for CO residents).

Which is exactly why I think that we're a front-runner. Just like the winter Olympics all over again...

The south Denver/Tech Center area was imagined with something like this in mind, maybe a big chunk of land out east along the southern part of e-470.. It's really all the other stuff that kind of stinks, all the extra traffic, all the extra people on the ski slopes, etc..

As a Colorado resident, I'd love for them to pick anywhere BUT Denver. We already have major issues with homelessness, and rapidly rising cost of living. Our highways and infrastructure are beyond congested already, and our public transit is pretty half assed. If Amazon is going to build HQ2 here, they better help contribute to improving public transit, creating affordable housing, and help improve the highways to handle the influx of more new people, which I doubt they'll do. So please, pick somewhere else.

Considering that's a very accurate description of Seattle, I'd say your doubts are well founded.

Thank you, and I'm sorry, if you're a Seattle resident.

If only there was a system in place where the money paid to the 50K employees could be taxed by the state and city..... We could call it an income tax. Perhaps these people could even spend their money in their new home with local businesses too? Then this income tax could further apply to the people that paid.

Just imagine the possibilities.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I'm routinely shocked by the lack of basic economic knowledge on HN.

I live in Denver and don't drive. I would love more infill and higher density! Perhaps if the campus took over the Elitch Garden's space I would hope that a lot of the new workers would stay downtown and hopefully many would be without car.

Interesting, I would have still guessed Massachusetts due to the education system. If there goal is to make high paying jobs an educated population makes it much easier to find talent.

Amazon is already building a pretty big facility (about 5K employees as I recall). The upside is certainly the universities and the fact that Massachusetts is already a significant tech hub, albeit in a somewhat different vein from Silicon Valley. The downside is land and CoL in the city is very expensive and traffic/transit congestion is already pretty bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com