The elongation of the search process has enabled critics to answer this question with an expanded list of complaints. Here are just a few of the recurring criticisms:
Transportation infrastructure — For already congested areas such as Boston and D.C., the perils of another 50,000 workers commuting to and from work is apparent. But even for those medium- to small-sized cities, is it possible to accommodate the daily flow of such an exponential increase in people — even if the hiring comes in phases?
In a case of bad timing, this issue has been front and center at the home of Amazon’s first headquarters as Seattle has struggled with the political fallout from its recently passed — and quickly repealed — “head tax,” which was aimed at providing funding for homeless services and affordable housing.
Incentives — Similar to the venom leveled at cities for the hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent to save sports franchises, whatever hefty price tag comes with HQ2 is certain to receive massive criticism from watchdog groups, incentive-hating commentators, and potentially voters.
Distraction — Considering that the starting number of 238 competing cities has been reduced to the current number of 20 and will ultimately result in only one winner, some argue that the resources invested by the losing 237 locations could have been better invested, especially for a project that was, for the losing suitors, a longshot at best.
As site consultants, we’ve voiced from day one that the benefits of a project of this size greatly overwhelm whatever negative impacts — perceived or real — come with it. Any city with a viable chance to compete is justified in doing so. But in a day and age where every political action is endlessly autopsied, the 19 cities and regions that are left empty-handed at the end of the day may have much explaining to do. The same may hold true for the eventual winner.
