The city would prefer that Amazon's presence has benefits for citizens as a whole - or at least didn't make their live worse - rather than enriching a few. Seems reasonable to me.
That said, the problem is that average wages don't rise as fast as the cost of living does. But that housing is so expensive is a failure of local government policies, and by extension, the voters who support those policies. Housing doesn't have to be super expensive; voters actively choose policies that make it so.
People are getting what they voted for, and they're mad as hell about it.
And that's presumably part of the problem
> But that housing is so expensive is a failure of local government policies, and by extension, the voters who support those policies. Housing doesn't have to be super expensive.
I'd be interested to know precisely which local government policies are failing here. To a naive outsider, it sounds as if its likely that well-off incomers are displacing existing populations from desirable areas/properties.
What are the failures of local government housing policy? Failure to relax standards so that existing residence can move into nice high-density prefab blocks built on existing green-space?
Like, when demand goes straight up and supply can't go nearly as fast, what else would anyone expect? I don't understand why everyone always acts so shocked that the completely predictable happens over and over.
Seattle has actually been much better about allowing more housing than some peer cities, like SF. But compared to cities in most other developed countries, the situation is still awful. For example, the kind of very low density zoning that is commonplace in Seattle literally doesn't exist anywhere in Japan or Germany.
I don't think you'll find many urbanists or YIMBYs pushing to demolish greenspace like parks or trails. I'm certainly not; if anything, I'd prefer to push to acquire more greenspace, perhaps by redeveloping surface parking lots. As for housing needs, there's plenty of space where things are already developed.
*typed with thumbs
The time constraint you mention is often artificial, six months for permitting here and two months for an impact study there. Actual construction is surprisingly fast.
...with one significant difference: communities are generally much more amenable to increased jobs than increased residents. And companies growing fast usually are cool with huge buildings in the city center, which is the one place where cities are generally fine with high density. Getting cities to be okay with, say, low-rise housing developments across the city is a much harder ask. So it really does just come down to zoning and zoning-adjacent concerns (e.g. community input meetings where developments get shot down).
Also, manufacturing delays don't have any impact on supply and demand. They are part of the "supply".
Thay aren't shocked, as you say its a predictable side effect. That's why cities have to be careful when saying yes please to the economic growth promised by big companies - it can have a detrimental effects on the people living there. Zoning regulations aren't usually arbitrary (I can't speak for any particular city's ordinances) they are there to ensure that minimum housing standards are met, that people don't find themselves living too close to heavy industrial areas, that the infrastructure and green space can cope.
> Zoning regulations aren't usually arbitrary
True, in many cases they were designed to keep out undesirables, like people who are poor, or non-white. That's not arbitrary, it's intentionally bigoted.
Nobody's suggesting dumping factories into residential areas, or relaxing basic safety standards. That type of zoning is absolutely fine.
The biggest reason is political, that people have NIMBY tendencies: yes there needs to be more housing somewhere, but put it somewhere else please. I don't want to have to worry about parking or see unsightly apartments on my block.
I don't dispute that infrastructure is a concern, but it's not a blocker. Cities growing quickly isn't some unfathomable phenomenon of the 21st century, the logistics can be handled if people want it politically.
Are they really in denial though, I mean many want the housing prices to go up because it means their housing ( asset ) increases as well. So there is clearly a conflict of interest.
There's definitely a grouping of people who just think adding more housing doesn't help lower prices.
There's so much economic development that could happen if we simply allowed builders to build the housing that people so desperately need. its win win.
By definition new apartments in a less dense area will have to stand out and the transitioning will result in either clashing. The alternative is they do it in a big wave and say buy out a small neighborhood cul de sac and turn them into apartments. It wouldn't clash any more even if they went with something downright garish but the big changes like that also upset people as they find it jarring.
But, what really happens, is the "city" or "city council" wants is to score political points, because a tax would also impact themselves and their friends and family. Everyone wants someone else to pay to benefit citizens as a whole, when obviously the fairest way is to pass a tax applicable to all "enriched" citizens.
It is like reacting to a give away of free shoes to orphans with "Those orphan shoes aren't organic, the bastards!" while ignoring the others make luxury shoes /out of/ orphans because "Blood of the Innocent" brand Cobblers always does that sort of thing.