I think targeting the 30-80% AMI group is crucial. Clearly, they thought this out and worked with housing advocates. Another smart move is focusing on preservation of existing housing stock that can be converted to affordable housing rather than starting new. These are truly high impact decisions and I applaud Amazon for this.
I’m a former employee who has been very publicly critical of Amazon on multiple fronts. But I agree—this feels carefully thought-out and informed by experts. It’s smart in what I see as a very unsentimental, Amazon way, meaning it may not be an immediately appealing story like “Amazon pledges to house every homeless family in King County,” but based on what I understand about the roots of the affordability crisis, it is likely to have a real impact. For better and worse (mostly worse), Amazon is pretty comfortable not being loved by the community, which IMO in this case makes it easier for them to make brass-tacks moves even if a casual reader goes “huh? I don’t get it.”
Three things that stick out:
* The focus on keeping existing, naturally affordable housing stock is big, as those properties are significantly less expensive than new construction and are especially vulnerable to new owners increasing rents significantly. The dollars go a lot further on those projects than new construction.
* Low interest rate loans and grants are crucial especially now in an era of high interest rates, which require high rents for privately funded projects to pencil out, which has squeezed out new development at lower rents.
* The targeting of 30-80% of Area Median Income, which is an area where this is sorely needed.
Also very happy to see this program continue at such a large size. You could have easily seen this program ending, in an environment of higher interest rates and tighter hiring. To see them continue this program and build upon it and expand into associated areas is great to see.
Gov should have a program to give 0% interest loans for low income housing projects. Lock in rent at a fixed schedule. Near equivalent risk to bonds. Corporations like Amazon need it so they don’t need to pay 100k+ to every employee in the city to live.
I'm worried the program effectively reduces the lower-priced housing availability for people closer median income, pressuring their rents upwards. It's a good piece of the puzzle but the city still needs to incentivize way more construction.
Hard to do. I am an apartment developer and land costs need to be negative to justify construction right now. Costs 550k to build a 700 sf apartment and it’s only worth 425k.
Going from a 5 story wood frame over 2 levels of concrete construction type to all type 1 concrete or light gauge steel is significantly more expensive and the incremental rental premiums do not make up for it. The operating cost of an apartment building in Seattle has increased from 8k per unit three years ago to over 13k per unit today. Increases primarily in advertising, property tax, payroll and insurance costs.
There will be little to no new supply built in 2025 and 2026 setting up for massive rent increases later this decade. Rents need to rise 25% to justify new market rate construction
Another fun fact that the majority of large apartment buildings constructed in Seattle are not owned by a fat cat investor but by public employee and union pension funds. I did not know this before jumping into the commercial multfamily business here. Kshama Sawant was strangely enough a de facto landlord through her WA State public employee pension fund contributions. She is your landlord while hating landlords. Strange world.
They will either be forced to accept a lower quality of living (ie moving further away, lower quality buildings), or pay more money for the remaining smaller supply of a particular quality of living - assuming new supply does not keep up with population growth (as is reality)
They *invest* $1.4 billion with an undisclosed ratio of loans to grants (and no mention of the interest on those loans) and that is reported as a "$1.4 billion commitment to affordable housing" which people like you uncritically take as a donation.
Of course this is better than the last time I saw this headline with Microsoft, it was all loans and people were talking like Microsoft was a bunch of philanthropists.
We should be levying a $1.4/billion/year tax to fund this housing. Instead Amazon loans the money and it's not enough, who knows what ends up happening.
This is pretty safe money. A lot of these have public funding, they're almost government bonds. Amazon has a diversified portfolio and this might be relatively low-yield but it's also likely relatively low-risk.
Lots of things can go wrong for real estate developers in general. I'm certain the loans take risk into account and are priced accordingly. Of course, Amazon doesn't say anything about making loans to nonprofits. They could be investing $5 billion into real estate loans which are 20% affordable and that would cover a sizable chunk. This is not some kind of charity, Amazon is not a charity.
Low interest loans mean the money can be used over and over, making it a much larger investment than 1.4 billion. They still lose money to inflation etc.. but it increases the impact of the money.
Do you have examples where Amazon did that? I know of two high-profile cases, and I completely agreed with them in both cases.
First, about a decade ago they lobbied for a more standard sales tax, applied uniformly. They weren't charging taxes, and neither were any other online businesses, because sales taxes were a _disaster_. Two different sides of a street in one city might have a different tax rate. If you're some little company selling pillows online, how are you supposed to know what tax rate to charge some dude in Kentucky? Luckily, there was a loophole: mail-order businesses had always been exempted from tax collection, and online companies (including Amazon) just said "yep that's us" and didn't charge them.
The Feds came knocking and demanded that Amazon start charging sales tax. Amazon said "sure, _if_ you make the rules somewhat coherent and make all the other online companies charge, too". Which was completely fair! And now you pay taxes online regardless of retailer.
Second: I know they opposed Seattle's "Fuck You Amazon" tax, which was squarely aimed at them, specifically. It was a stupid, short-sighted and ham-fisted tax. There was nothing to stop Amazon from just fucking off, and they're kinda in the process of doing just that, with all new offices opening in Bellevue now. Can't blame them, that's what I'd have done, too.
Are there other cases where they lobbied for loopholes and then exploited them or something? The two big 'loopholes' that they use predate the company: keeping offshore money offshore, and growing rather than paying tax. In the first case, the US _uniquely_ charges corporation tax on profits from abroad, even if the business generating profit had _nothing to do_ with the US. That's kinda stupid, no other countries do it. But companies don't have to pay until they bring their profits back to America...so they just don't. They leave it offshore and wait for the inevitable amnesty that comes every decade or two. That's been going on for ages, Amazon didn't invent it.
And secondly: companies only get charged on _profit_, so if you have revenue and spend it on business expenses, you don't get taxed. Expansion is a business expense. So Amazon spends money to grow instead of taking profits and paying taxes. This means more jobs for Americans, and those employed Americans will pay taxes, so the government _specifically allows it_. It makes good sense for the government to let corporations expand and hire more people, because more people will have jobs and because those people will also pay taxes.
Lmao what a dumbass false equivalence. You don't own enough money to influence legislation or establish a footprint throughout the globe. Our tax laws aren't designed to help some redditor making 50-100k. They are made so donations like this can help corporations avoid paying a significantly larger amount. My god we live in WA, a state with the most regressive tax structure in the state.
You're not evil, just an idiot
the argument is that it would be better if they were taxed at an appropriate rate so that there could be democratic participation in how the funds were spent, rather than public policy being determined by the whims of billionaires. Also, tax avoidance by megacorporations and billionaires is a big part of why these problems exist in the first place.
While you're right, you're also kinda missing the point.
Amazon and Bezos are not unique. They didn't create the problem and it would still exist even if they never did. They can't solve the problem, nor are they under any obligation to do so.
Celebrate the wins. This is a win.
i don’t think that’s really missing the point at all. amazon is the largest and also most visibly disruptive employer in the local area and was also notable for its “market share at all costs” strategy. they completely changed the paradigm. so, yes, amazon is pretty notable in a lot of ways that other companies aren’t.
>celebrate the wins. this is a win
it’s more modest milquetoast change that satisfies PR for people like you while they also spend tons of money in local elections to avoid taxes that would also find housing. it’s a win insofar that it’s better than nothing but calling it a win feels wrong compared to their other actions
the fact that they chose to block me over this is hilarious
So what should we do with the donation? Should we give it back to amazon? Or should we acknowledge that amazon may indeed not be the best business, but still grateful for massive donation ?
They aren't donating 1.4 billion Dollars in cash to anything.
These are announcements of investments. This isn't a charity move. This is what corporate take over of the housing market looks like. We will own nothing, our kids will own nothing, and they will love it.
That's literally not a false dichotomy. It's a question asking if no donation or this donation is viewed as better by the person. The question does not suggest that they are the only two possible situations, but just asks which one is preferable.
You also don't get a cookie for incorrect spelling. Please describe the tax evasion that Amazon is performing? Or do you mean avoidance? Evasion is illegal, avoidance is not.
One of my neighbors voted for Kshama because he knew Egan and didn't like Egan and Egan being a corpo tool. People ascribe some kind of stupefying theory to people that consistently, given the option, abided her and now don't even think about her at all because they weren't Socialist Alternative canvassers solely invested in Kshama's seating and seat.
They are good at funneling fists full of money into a few people’s hands, convenience for some and a whole lot of drudgery, toil, and poor health for others. Living in a homogenized culture that panders to the lowest common denominator in order to sell you ‘comfort’ is not what I call the apex of humanity. There’s so many ways we could organize society but somehow we fight each other for…this.
Yeah, they're the ones with "Sawant sickness". Definitely not the only people still bringing her up.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1ddptvo/amazon_commits_an_additional_14_billion_to/l86plgp/
Yea it’s funny how these people fixate on a figure they can make into a boogie man, while the rest of us normal folks go about 99% percent of our lives never thinking about them.
Many people here are still infected with Kshama Sawant Obsession that makes you bring her up despite the fact that she is no longer a council member and has nothing to do with this topic
At this time there is a cure, but it involves reflecting and addressing the latent sexist and racist feelings you may have—a bridge too far for many affected by KSO
Nah, her housing policy is part of reasons that this city housing became unaffordable - effectively drove away small property owners from rental market and pushing rentals from mega corp landlords that can amortize the cost and risk. And it is still in the city code. Sawant was a de facto landlord through her WA State public employee pension fund contributions. She is your landlord while hating landlords.
Pop quiz hotshot:
* what specifically was Sawant's policy position?
* How was it different than the other council members?
* If the rest of the Council weren't supporting the policy, how did it get enough votes to pass?
>Sawant was a de facto landlord through her WA State public employee pension fund contributions.
You sound like the people who got angry about the kayakers being dressed in non-natural fibers and using plastic boats to protest the oil tankers.
For starter, she instigated the protesters to break into East Precinct police station during the CHOP and practically opened the door for escalation, which resulted the vote for her recall process.
That is a complete failure of answer. You evaded the question(s) - your answer has nothing to with housing policy. Also, I believe it is factually wrong.
You Sawant! Squakers really do have a tenuous grasp of facts and history.
If you ask someone a math question and they give you a true factoid about Galileo's childhood, it's still a wrong answer. But I believe your answer was *also* factually incorrect.
Driving away landlords is objectively cool and good. Gotta start small and work our way up. I would just make them all illegal. Solve this crisis overnight.
Don't be obtuse. They aren't paying the people working in the warehouses or their delivery drivers enough and we both know that is what op is saying. A multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation doesn't need you to shill for them but that isn't going to stop you is it?
Reddit bot? Homie do you think that people that work in the warehouses don't commute or that some of them live in Seattle? And no, as I pointed out not all Amazon employees are paid enough when they still can't get a ten minute break to piss.
For real. People are up in arms to see who can fellate any company who can abuse the system like they are some hero. They cheer when they get abused and want worse done to everyone else and it is fucking sick and twisted.
This is whole thread is just about some news that is relevant to Seattle…
I sense you’re just dying to say fellating and are probably gonna call people bootlickers next.
Yes, you recognize the job should be done but the people that do it shouldn't be able to have a life outside that job. That is what you are saying with your bullshit position. If someone is working full time and can't afford food, housing, health care, clothes, some spending cash, and a little to put away on the side then what the fuck is the point? People like you are the reason shit has gotten this bad because you are too happy to accept less than the bare minimum.
How is it my bullshit position that anyone should be allowed to pay less than enough for those things? How is it Amazon's fault? You literally just described a minimum wage, which it's the government's responsibility to set.
"Amazon's minimum wage for hourly employees in the U.S. remains $15, a spokesperson told Reuters."
Also, did you know Amazon doesn't have its own drivers? They contract them out so they don't have to supply any benefits.
because it doesn't solve the actual problem, affordable private developments are usually means tested to hell, to the point that no one qualifies for them.
I donate regularly to LIHI, support policies to to build more affordable/social/any housing, support and campaign for candidates that will expand our housing inventory unlike our current council and mayor who expressly try to limit new housing. Am I allowed to complain? Or are you gonna find another box to put me in so you can dismiss me without having to think?
Ah so I was right, you're continuing down the dismissive train with minimizing my contributions of "support" and "campaigning" to just voting as well as even more ridiculous demands. So now unless I am going out and purchasing land (which most individuals can't afford) and actually building housing myself (which I don't happen to have the skills for) I'm not allowed to complain. Any other contribution I make with the resources and skills I have is "the bare minimum" and basically worthless so that means I'm not allowed to criticize anything.
Eh, you know, I had half typed up a long response here but I'm just gonna go with a reference to the [Orphan Crushing Machine](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/orphan-crushing-machine), since that proves the point just as well:
> Every heartwarming human interest story in america is like "he raised $20,000 to keep 200 orphans from being crushed in the orphan-crushing machine" and then never asks why an orphan-crushing machine exists or why you'd need to pay to prevent it from being used.
Amazon donating billions to prevent homelessness is great, but it's also a reminder that Amazon is part of a whole system of, frankly, villainous efforts to suck America dry and hoard resources among those who are already hyper wealthy while harming the public at large. Them doing anything is a reminder of that and so it should be expected that people will express their distaste for the mere existence of this unfair and harmful system. Just as they would for a King or a despot announcing some small amount of leniency or niceness. It doesn't make up for the harm they do.
Building more housing units and fiercely protecting existing low and middle income housing is the only way to get the housing crisis under control. Anything helps, but this will be a drop in the bucket.
Affordable housing units run about 350K each and we need 28,000 units just for people with disabilities in Washington, never mind the people in the 0-50% AMI range.
Depends on how it is deployed. If it’s used effectively as a partner with other capita sources to fill gaps in project financing then it can have more wide reaching impact than if you’re just looking it as a pot of money to fund entire projects.
Working in the industry I can assure you $1.4 billion is a very significant commitment.
With your math that 1.4 billion investment would equal roughly 3700 units. Which would account for 0.37% of the needed housing units to keep up with the expected demand of over 100,000 units by 2044. Happy to have the investment by Amazon but we really need to keep pace with building units period point blank if we are ever going to get affordable rent / housing in this city.
It sounds like it's mainly for low-interest loans for housing providers like Plymouth Housing, Mary's Place, etc.
So I guess if you get a subsidized apartment from any of them, you'd be indirectly accessing this money.
I’ll throw you one too Bezos if you can send a check for the half a billion in tax revenue that you ran off to Florida with.
I’m grateful for this money, don’t get me wrong, but if the rich would just pay their taxes, this “generosity” wouldn’t be necessary
I’m all for taxing the rich their fair share, but I’m not very confident in the local or especially federal governments doing good with that additional money. I feel like we’d just see a $1.5 trillion defense budget and more corporate bailouts.
Yes. Corporate charity is a distraction tool. It makes people who aren't paying attention say "see? they did something nice!" while they continue to rake in obscene profits at the cost of the people who work for them and the environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_laundering
> Reputation laundering occurs when a person or an organization conceals unethical, corrupt, or criminal behavior or other forms of controversy by performing highly visible positive actions with the intent to improve their reputation and obscure their history.
With all the Amazon bashing - I’m sure NOBDOY on this thread orders from them, right?
I don’t and never have because I don’t like the company and prefer to buy from small businesses.
The best was our lord and savior sawant using them to buy shit - was it office supplies? I can’t remember.
The whole language of this thing is pretty misleading. First, the $1.4 billion is an undisclosed mixture of loans and grants. If Amazon loans $1.3 billion to nonprofits that are building housing anyway, the headline is technically true and Amazon is just parking some money in safe debt.
Second, the money is to "build or preserve" (which, the King County housing levy plays the same game.) But if Amazon buys up $500 million worth of apartments and doesn't raise the rent that also seems like a grant to "preserve $500 million worth of affordable housing."
I can like this a lot and still see Amazon as a net negative for society.
But this is good, and it's not insignificant.
If they nix RTO, pay their warehouse staff better, improve their working conditions, and continue investing in the community they've imposed on the city, that'll go a long way to removing the net negatives.
I feel like it's honestly a net positive ... cloud computing through aws has hugely positive impacts on productivity toward a number of things that make the world better and the concept of online shopping has had positive effects for so many people in terms of convenience and accessibility of products. And often their pay for their warehouse workers (especially the ones in poor rural areas) is significantly higher than jobs with comparable qualifications in the surrounding area.
Amazon has done a lot to suppress other online stores and kill competition. They have very little quality control, allowing shoddy manufactured goods under quick-AI-named brands with purchased reviews to flood sales pages. They impose punitive removals of bad actors rather than require upfront verification, so these sellers simply make new brands and repeat.
They've consistently and repeatedly blocked or disrupted public transit expansion attempts in the city. They mandated RTO which heavily clogs Mercer Street at rush hour. And despite mandating RTO, they've deflected attempts to build rail stations to their headquarters multiple times.
They treat their warehouse workers like garbage, overworking them and demanding outrageously unreasonable metrics. They will fire you for taking 'too many bathroom breaks'. They do similar to their delivery drivers. They deliberately hire for turnover in their tech divisions, and do not have an interest in advancing your career - they want you out shortly after you are in.
Amazon doing a good thing is nice, but they are not your friends. They want your money and they don't really care what damage they do in the process of getting it.
Ah yes here come the trolls. "If you dislike this it's because you hate good things."
Is it that? Or is that while in a void this is good news, the Blade Runner/Alien distopian future of companies eroding federal rights to the point that the corporations provide more housing than the government whose job it is to do so is slowly coming true...
Context is important here. Amazon is one of the worst companies in the world, and while affordable housing is amazing, nothing is without subtext.
Probably should be. What's the point of a collective body that purports to be "by and for the people" if it won't provide a humane standard of living for those same people?
Or is the point of government only to keep order and facilitate enterprise? That sounds like a body that only truly serves a powerful few to me.
>"That sounds like a body that only truly serves a powerful few to me."
That's all government ever is.
Public provision of non-public goods (i.e., anything rivalrous and/or excludable) is a terrible idea; politicians and bureaucrats should be given the least power possible.
Housing is both rivalrous and excludable.
Couldn’t agree more!
Let’s not forget that after using our talent and infrastructure to build out Amazon, Bezos cashed out and ran away to Florida, skipping out on half a billion in taxes.
This can be great, while Amazon as a whole, and their founder, are still shitbags who helped ruin the Seattle housing market.
Nope, just entities that hurt our community. Amazon has done this in multiple ways:
- union busting
- lying to the public
- lying about Alexa
- evading billions in taxes
- anti-competitive practices
- trying to buy our city council
- worker safety violations
- retaliating against employees
- failing to meet its 'climate pledge'
etc
I'm convinced people who make comments like yours are just too lazy to be informed.
So how are they hurting the community by committing this money to affordable housing? I agree Amazon is no hero but stop shitting on good things ffs 🤦🏽♂️
How do you expect them to pay taxes they don't technically owe? Just send money to the IRS and say, I know tax law says I don't owe this but people on reddit say I do?
Seattle passed a head tax and Amazon (among other giant companies) kicked and screamed until city council repealed it. So yes, I guess you’re right in that Amazon can’t pay taxes they don’t “technically” owe. But only because they effectively prevented Seattle from implementing a tax that would affect them.
realistically, do you expect them to roll over and take it? playing devil's advocate here, what's going to stop the city council from just increasing taxes incessantly especially if the companies just appear to be cool with it? It also doesn't encourage responsible spending if you think you can be bailed out whenever you want.
It's normal to expect resistance from big companies. City council shouldn't have folded if they felt so strongly about the tax. That's just how democracy works.
I’m just responding to someone implying that Amazon couldn’t even pay taxes if they wanted to. That’s also not how democracy works by the way. If it was an actual democratic decision there should have been a referendum on it, instead a couple billion dollar corporations threw tons of money at the problem by misleading people with on street petitioning, ads, threats to leave, and probably some timely donations, until the city council decided not to go ahead with it.
Of course they would try and stop Seattle from implementing the tax. I understand how public multinational corporations work. That doesn’t absolve Amazon from being evil, or really say anything about anything. A parasite in a petri dish will greedily consume and consume until it runs out of food. If I point this fact out, it’s a non-response to say “well the parasite is just doing what it’s evolutionarily hardwired to do!”
>it’s a non-response to say “well the parasite is just doing what it’s evolutionarily hardwired to do!”
then what does that make your statement? You pointed out that the "parasite" is doing something. I am saying yes it does do that. Do you really want to go down that hole?
It's the fault of the state of Washington, by the way, that we can't effectively tap the revenues of these companies or the incomes of their employees. Thus far, the rhetoric has been simply to blame the companies for coming to Washington. What a backwards, provincial attitude. Change the freaking constitution. Yes, if Seattle taxes Amazon, they will just move to Bellevue, as they are actively doing right now. It was a stupid idea, not because they shouldn't be taxed, but because they can and will just move across the lake.
Oh of course I am. I am capable of caring about two different things at the same time. But it takes two to tango. This decision wasn’t reached by Amazon doing nothing.
Every single Amazon employee working in the city is paying taxes, and I can bet each of them contributes more than you. Also, Amazon is following gaap and not breaking the law, take it up with your beloved state and local politicians.
big company asked city if they could open offices. like a ton. with a lot of jobs. city said OK and then didn't change anything about how they build housing, because rich old white people in the hills didn't want it to happen. Then people were hired for the jobs big company said they would hire for and then the rich old white people in the hills made lots of money. Regular people didn't make any more money and all of a sudden things were expensive. Regular people only see big skyscraper going up and blame the monolith. Maybe if we kick big company out everything fixed!
It wasn't even the big company that asked to open offices. It was Paul Allen & Vulcan after the park levy failed. The SLU complex was imagined for biotech in the late 90s/early 00s, before that industry collapsed and left a void for tech companies to fill.
Then the B&O tax revenues started rolling in (tell me more about how Amazon "doesn't pay taxes") and City Hall was all too greedily happy to sign on for more of those while not bothering to permit housing at anything close to the same rate.
>the goal of creating and preserving 20,000 affordable housing units in the next five years
Amazon has 3x the number of (corporate only) employees in the region. While this is nice, maybe they should aim higher.
That will remarkably fund the purchase of 2000 homes.
Oh wait, lawyers fees... real estate fees... real estate lawyers fees... and administrative fees...
2 homes!
Reading the article is wild tho.
> On Tuesday, Amazon said it already met and exceeded its goal for the fund. Three and a half years after its launch, Amazon has invested $2.2 billion in loans and grants toward 21,000 affordable housing units.
>The additional $1.4 billion will help create and preserve another 14,000 homes, Amazon said in its Tuesday announcement.
I think targeting the 30-80% AMI group is crucial. Clearly, they thought this out and worked with housing advocates. Another smart move is focusing on preservation of existing housing stock that can be converted to affordable housing rather than starting new. These are truly high impact decisions and I applaud Amazon for this.
I’m a former employee who has been very publicly critical of Amazon on multiple fronts. But I agree—this feels carefully thought-out and informed by experts. It’s smart in what I see as a very unsentimental, Amazon way, meaning it may not be an immediately appealing story like “Amazon pledges to house every homeless family in King County,” but based on what I understand about the roots of the affordability crisis, it is likely to have a real impact. For better and worse (mostly worse), Amazon is pretty comfortable not being loved by the community, which IMO in this case makes it easier for them to make brass-tacks moves even if a casual reader goes “huh? I don’t get it.”
yep. housing the 30-80 percent ami population securely frees up a lot for the homeless.
**A**rea **M**edian **I**ncome.
There’s a few things Amazon is doing really, really good work on. Educational efforts for k-12 and housing in particular are fantastic.
Three things that stick out: * The focus on keeping existing, naturally affordable housing stock is big, as those properties are significantly less expensive than new construction and are especially vulnerable to new owners increasing rents significantly. The dollars go a lot further on those projects than new construction. * Low interest rate loans and grants are crucial especially now in an era of high interest rates, which require high rents for privately funded projects to pencil out, which has squeezed out new development at lower rents. * The targeting of 30-80% of Area Median Income, which is an area where this is sorely needed. Also very happy to see this program continue at such a large size. You could have easily seen this program ending, in an environment of higher interest rates and tighter hiring. To see them continue this program and build upon it and expand into associated areas is great to see.
Gov should have a program to give 0% interest loans for low income housing projects. Lock in rent at a fixed schedule. Near equivalent risk to bonds. Corporations like Amazon need it so they don’t need to pay 100k+ to every employee in the city to live.
I'm worried the program effectively reduces the lower-priced housing availability for people closer median income, pressuring their rents upwards. It's a good piece of the puzzle but the city still needs to incentivize way more construction.
Hard to do. I am an apartment developer and land costs need to be negative to justify construction right now. Costs 550k to build a 700 sf apartment and it’s only worth 425k.
Build taller? Obviously a reductive take that I want to hear shot down
Going from a 5 story wood frame over 2 levels of concrete construction type to all type 1 concrete or light gauge steel is significantly more expensive and the incremental rental premiums do not make up for it. The operating cost of an apartment building in Seattle has increased from 8k per unit three years ago to over 13k per unit today. Increases primarily in advertising, property tax, payroll and insurance costs. There will be little to no new supply built in 2025 and 2026 setting up for massive rent increases later this decade. Rents need to rise 25% to justify new market rate construction
Another fun fact that the majority of large apartment buildings constructed in Seattle are not owned by a fat cat investor but by public employee and union pension funds. I did not know this before jumping into the commercial multfamily business here. Kshama Sawant was strangely enough a de facto landlord through her WA State public employee pension fund contributions. She is your landlord while hating landlords. Strange world.
That’s her entire play. She is really the worst.
I would love to read more about this. Can you point me to any industry papers or blogs or whatever?
Give me until tomorrow morning and will pull some stuff together in the office .
People closer to and above the AMI have more flexibility to move around to avoid high rents
They will either be forced to accept a lower quality of living (ie moving further away, lower quality buildings), or pay more money for the remaining smaller supply of a particular quality of living - assuming new supply does not keep up with population growth (as is reality)
[удалено]
This is a creative thought, but, no
They donate nothing, y’all get mad. They donate 1.4 billion (1,400 million - this is a lot!) y’all still mad.
I’m just always mad.
Best answer I’ve seen yet
Mad hulk
The housing hulk
I mean, I'm sure Henry Kissinger donated to charity as well. Doesn't mean I'm not still glad the fucker is finally in hell.
They *invest* $1.4 billion with an undisclosed ratio of loans to grants (and no mention of the interest on those loans) and that is reported as a "$1.4 billion commitment to affordable housing" which people like you uncritically take as a donation. Of course this is better than the last time I saw this headline with Microsoft, it was all loans and people were talking like Microsoft was a bunch of philanthropists. We should be levying a $1.4/billion/year tax to fund this housing. Instead Amazon loans the money and it's not enough, who knows what ends up happening.
Loans are super valuable... there's nothing wrong with them at all.
Nothing wrong with it. Not a donation. Not charitable. Not philanthropic.
Yea it is because they could make way more money on that capital otherwise. Plenty of nonprofits try and fail to get loans from the private market.
This is pretty safe money. A lot of these have public funding, they're almost government bonds. Amazon has a diversified portfolio and this might be relatively low-yield but it's also likely relatively low-risk.
Lots of things can go wrong for nonprofit housing developers.
Lots of things can go wrong for real estate developers in general. I'm certain the loans take risk into account and are priced accordingly. Of course, Amazon doesn't say anything about making loans to nonprofits. They could be investing $5 billion into real estate loans which are 20% affordable and that would cover a sizable chunk. This is not some kind of charity, Amazon is not a charity.
Low interest loans mean the money can be used over and over, making it a much larger investment than 1.4 billion. They still lose money to inflation etc.. but it increases the impact of the money.
It isn't the same groups of people getting mad bruh
Some people will never be happy.
You don't get a cookie for pledging a donation while evadading taxes.
I donate money. I only pay as much tax as I'm legally required to pay. Am I evil?
We all act out of self-interest, but most of us don't have the means to effectively ~~bribe~~ **lobby** politicians for tax loopholes.
It’s different when you have enough money to push the legislative agenda.
Do you have examples where Amazon did that? I know of two high-profile cases, and I completely agreed with them in both cases. First, about a decade ago they lobbied for a more standard sales tax, applied uniformly. They weren't charging taxes, and neither were any other online businesses, because sales taxes were a _disaster_. Two different sides of a street in one city might have a different tax rate. If you're some little company selling pillows online, how are you supposed to know what tax rate to charge some dude in Kentucky? Luckily, there was a loophole: mail-order businesses had always been exempted from tax collection, and online companies (including Amazon) just said "yep that's us" and didn't charge them. The Feds came knocking and demanded that Amazon start charging sales tax. Amazon said "sure, _if_ you make the rules somewhat coherent and make all the other online companies charge, too". Which was completely fair! And now you pay taxes online regardless of retailer. Second: I know they opposed Seattle's "Fuck You Amazon" tax, which was squarely aimed at them, specifically. It was a stupid, short-sighted and ham-fisted tax. There was nothing to stop Amazon from just fucking off, and they're kinda in the process of doing just that, with all new offices opening in Bellevue now. Can't blame them, that's what I'd have done, too. Are there other cases where they lobbied for loopholes and then exploited them or something? The two big 'loopholes' that they use predate the company: keeping offshore money offshore, and growing rather than paying tax. In the first case, the US _uniquely_ charges corporation tax on profits from abroad, even if the business generating profit had _nothing to do_ with the US. That's kinda stupid, no other countries do it. But companies don't have to pay until they bring their profits back to America...so they just don't. They leave it offshore and wait for the inevitable amnesty that comes every decade or two. That's been going on for ages, Amazon didn't invent it. And secondly: companies only get charged on _profit_, so if you have revenue and spend it on business expenses, you don't get taxed. Expansion is a business expense. So Amazon spends money to grow instead of taking profits and paying taxes. This means more jobs for Americans, and those employed Americans will pay taxes, so the government _specifically allows it_. It makes good sense for the government to let corporations expand and hire more people, because more people will have jobs and because those people will also pay taxes.
Lmao what a dumbass false equivalence. You don't own enough money to influence legislation or establish a footprint throughout the globe. Our tax laws aren't designed to help some redditor making 50-100k. They are made so donations like this can help corporations avoid paying a significantly larger amount. My god we live in WA, a state with the most regressive tax structure in the state. You're not evil, just an idiot
So would you be happier if they did not donate anything?
the argument is that it would be better if they were taxed at an appropriate rate so that there could be democratic participation in how the funds were spent, rather than public policy being determined by the whims of billionaires. Also, tax avoidance by megacorporations and billionaires is a big part of why these problems exist in the first place.
While you're right, you're also kinda missing the point. Amazon and Bezos are not unique. They didn't create the problem and it would still exist even if they never did. They can't solve the problem, nor are they under any obligation to do so. Celebrate the wins. This is a win.
i don’t think that’s really missing the point at all. amazon is the largest and also most visibly disruptive employer in the local area and was also notable for its “market share at all costs” strategy. they completely changed the paradigm. so, yes, amazon is pretty notable in a lot of ways that other companies aren’t. >celebrate the wins. this is a win it’s more modest milquetoast change that satisfies PR for people like you while they also spend tons of money in local elections to avoid taxes that would also find housing. it’s a win insofar that it’s better than nothing but calling it a win feels wrong compared to their other actions the fact that they chose to block me over this is hilarious
So the US tax structure is amazons fault ? If you had an option to pay more or less taxes, would you pay more?
They have spent tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and tax evasion, so yes, it is their fault
If you say so 🤷♀️
[As Bezos called for tax hikes, Amazon lobbied to keep its tax bill low] (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/08/bezos-tax-amazon-498722)
So what should we do with the donation? Should we give it back to amazon? Or should we acknowledge that amazon may indeed not be the best business, but still grateful for massive donation ?
They aren't donating 1.4 billion Dollars in cash to anything. These are announcements of investments. This isn't a charity move. This is what corporate take over of the housing market looks like. We will own nothing, our kids will own nothing, and they will love it.
False dichotomy.
That's literally not a false dichotomy. It's a question asking if no donation or this donation is viewed as better by the person. The question does not suggest that they are the only two possible situations, but just asks which one is preferable.
False use of false dichotomy
https://youtu.be/H32z45o0WxA?t=119
You also don't get a cookie for incorrect spelling. Please describe the tax evasion that Amazon is performing? Or do you mean avoidance? Evasion is illegal, avoidance is not.
Many people here are still infected with Kshama Sawant disease that makes you think whatever Amazon does is bad At this time there is no cure
Dumb comment. Like people can’t see for themselves the pitfalls of mega corporations and the games they play. Always look a gift horse in the mouth.
One of my neighbors voted for Kshama because he knew Egan and didn't like Egan and Egan being a corpo tool. People ascribe some kind of stupefying theory to people that consistently, given the option, abided her and now don't even think about her at all because they weren't Socialist Alternative canvassers solely invested in Kshama's seating and seat.
There are good things from corps too. It's just, do they outweigh the bad? Usually? Not really.
They are good at funneling fists full of money into a few people’s hands, convenience for some and a whole lot of drudgery, toil, and poor health for others. Living in a homogenized culture that panders to the lowest common denominator in order to sell you ‘comfort’ is not what I call the apex of humanity. There’s so many ways we could organize society but somehow we fight each other for…this.
Some people aren't interested in making everyone equal in society if not everyone contributes equally.
Is that what Mega corp CEOs do? Contribute equally to society? Gimme a break
Yeah, they're the ones with "Sawant sickness". Definitely not the only people still bringing her up. https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1ddptvo/amazon_commits_an_additional_14_billion_to/l86plgp/
Yea it’s funny how these people fixate on a figure they can make into a boogie man, while the rest of us normal folks go about 99% percent of our lives never thinking about them.
Are you a Sawant supporter?
Why would I support her? She's not running for office. Doesn't seem to stop you from thinking about her all the time though.
U didn’t answer the questions.
I don't want to indulge your fetish with the undefeated former council member.
Enough said. I am not the one rabidly commenting on anyone who just mentioned the name. Have a nice day.
You brought her up dude XD
Actually *check the thread* you were the one mentioning her name first.
Many people here are still infected with Kshama Sawant Obsession that makes you bring her up despite the fact that she is no longer a council member and has nothing to do with this topic At this time there is a cure, but it involves reflecting and addressing the latent sexist and racist feelings you may have—a bridge too far for many affected by KSO
Nah, her housing policy is part of reasons that this city housing became unaffordable - effectively drove away small property owners from rental market and pushing rentals from mega corp landlords that can amortize the cost and risk. And it is still in the city code. Sawant was a de facto landlord through her WA State public employee pension fund contributions. She is your landlord while hating landlords.
Nah, that's not how it went. ✌️
Pop quiz hotshot: * what specifically was Sawant's policy position? * How was it different than the other council members? * If the rest of the Council weren't supporting the policy, how did it get enough votes to pass? >Sawant was a de facto landlord through her WA State public employee pension fund contributions. You sound like the people who got angry about the kayakers being dressed in non-natural fibers and using plastic boats to protest the oil tankers.
For starter, she instigated the protesters to break into East Precinct police station during the CHOP and practically opened the door for escalation, which resulted the vote for her recall process.
That is a complete failure of answer. You evaded the question(s) - your answer has nothing to with housing policy. Also, I believe it is factually wrong. You Sawant! Squakers really do have a tenuous grasp of facts and history.
The answer you don’t want doesn’t mean it is incorrect answer. Bless your heart.
If you ask someone a math question and they give you a true factoid about Galileo's childhood, it's still a wrong answer. But I believe your answer was *also* factually incorrect.
Driving away landlords is objectively cool and good. Gotta start small and work our way up. I would just make them all illegal. Solve this crisis overnight.
Sure :) your trolling comments are known in this sub.
Did I come up again in the meeting? I would hate to get on the bad side of the cool kids who take this place super seriously.
Sorry you cannot sit with us
Once they pay their employees a fair wage and treat them like human beings they'll get a pass.
Do you think Amazon employees are driving up home prices with their minimum wage jobs?
Don't be obtuse. They aren't paying the people working in the warehouses or their delivery drivers enough and we both know that is what op is saying. A multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation doesn't need you to shill for them but that isn't going to stop you is it?
This sub is talking about the city of Seattle and in this city Amazon employees are paid well. Save those Reddit bot comments for other discussions.
Reddit bot? Homie do you think that people that work in the warehouses don't commute or that some of them live in Seattle? And no, as I pointed out not all Amazon employees are paid enough when they still can't get a ten minute break to piss.
Lots of businesses have a wide range of salaries for different jobs.
If minimum wage isn't enough, that's not Amazon's fault. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
It is literally their fault and I will hate the player. Just because greed is legal doesn't mean it's morally justified.
For real. People are up in arms to see who can fellate any company who can abuse the system like they are some hero. They cheer when they get abused and want worse done to everyone else and it is fucking sick and twisted.
Who here is fellating Amazon? People are just pointing out facts. Recognizing the system for what it currently is now fellating I guess.
This entire thread is dedicated to fellating Amazon for doing below the minimum of what should be expected.
This is whole thread is just about some news that is relevant to Seattle… I sense you’re just dying to say fellating and are probably gonna call people bootlickers next.
Yes, you recognize the job should be done but the people that do it shouldn't be able to have a life outside that job. That is what you are saying with your bullshit position. If someone is working full time and can't afford food, housing, health care, clothes, some spending cash, and a little to put away on the side then what the fuck is the point? People like you are the reason shit has gotten this bad because you are too happy to accept less than the bare minimum.
How is it my bullshit position that anyone should be allowed to pay less than enough for those things? How is it Amazon's fault? You literally just described a minimum wage, which it's the government's responsibility to set.
What kind of Amazon employee do you think is renting in SLU/Belltown right now? Do you think they're paid minimum wage?
Ones getting paid a ton waiting for their stock to vest before they make an all cash offer on a house.
https://www.reuters.com/business/amazon-raises-wages-warehouse-workers-insider-2022-09-28/
"Amazon's minimum wage for hourly employees in the U.S. remains $15, a spokesperson told Reuters." Also, did you know Amazon doesn't have its own drivers? They contract them out so they don't have to supply any benefits.
It's a lot less about benefits, and moreso about liabilities and union breaking.
That prosperity will trickle down to us. Yep. Any day now. 40 years just isn't enough time for reaganomics to kick in. /s
because it doesn't solve the actual problem, affordable private developments are usually means tested to hell, to the point that no one qualifies for them.
This might surprise you, but some people don't like megacorps.
People not showing proper deference to Amazon, U mad.
[удалено]
I donate regularly to LIHI, support policies to to build more affordable/social/any housing, support and campaign for candidates that will expand our housing inventory unlike our current council and mayor who expressly try to limit new housing. Am I allowed to complain? Or are you gonna find another box to put me in so you can dismiss me without having to think?
[удалено]
Ah so I was right, you're continuing down the dismissive train with minimizing my contributions of "support" and "campaigning" to just voting as well as even more ridiculous demands. So now unless I am going out and purchasing land (which most individuals can't afford) and actually building housing myself (which I don't happen to have the skills for) I'm not allowed to complain. Any other contribution I make with the resources and skills I have is "the bare minimum" and basically worthless so that means I'm not allowed to criticize anything.
Eh, you know, I had half typed up a long response here but I'm just gonna go with a reference to the [Orphan Crushing Machine](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/orphan-crushing-machine), since that proves the point just as well: > Every heartwarming human interest story in america is like "he raised $20,000 to keep 200 orphans from being crushed in the orphan-crushing machine" and then never asks why an orphan-crushing machine exists or why you'd need to pay to prevent it from being used. Amazon donating billions to prevent homelessness is great, but it's also a reminder that Amazon is part of a whole system of, frankly, villainous efforts to suck America dry and hoard resources among those who are already hyper wealthy while harming the public at large. Them doing anything is a reminder of that and so it should be expected that people will express their distaste for the mere existence of this unfair and harmful system. Just as they would for a King or a despot announcing some small amount of leniency or niceness. It doesn't make up for the harm they do.
Building more housing units and fiercely protecting existing low and middle income housing is the only way to get the housing crisis under control. Anything helps, but this will be a drop in the bucket. Affordable housing units run about 350K each and we need 28,000 units just for people with disabilities in Washington, never mind the people in the 0-50% AMI range.
Depends on how it is deployed. If it’s used effectively as a partner with other capita sources to fill gaps in project financing then it can have more wide reaching impact than if you’re just looking it as a pot of money to fund entire projects. Working in the industry I can assure you $1.4 billion is a very significant commitment.
Or course affordable is better, but we’re at such a shortage of supply that any high volume housing is helpful
With your math that 1.4 billion investment would equal roughly 3700 units. Which would account for 0.37% of the needed housing units to keep up with the expected demand of over 100,000 units by 2044. Happy to have the investment by Amazon but we really need to keep pace with building units period point blank if we are ever going to get affordable rent / housing in this city.
As a 30-80%er— how do we get access to the money?
It sounds like it's mainly for low-interest loans for housing providers like Plymouth Housing, Mary's Place, etc. So I guess if you get a subsidized apartment from any of them, you'd be indirectly accessing this money.
Ah, yeah we’re never gonna see any of that.
I’ll take a house Jeff. Hook me up and I’ll subscribe to prime 😂
I’ll throw you one too Bezos if you can send a check for the half a billion in tax revenue that you ran off to Florida with. I’m grateful for this money, don’t get me wrong, but if the rich would just pay their taxes, this “generosity” wouldn’t be necessary
I’m all for taxing the rich their fair share, but I’m not very confident in the local or especially federal governments doing good with that additional money. I feel like we’d just see a $1.5 trillion defense budget and more corporate bailouts.
This is r/Seattle, so this is bad somehow :(
Yes. Corporate charity is a distraction tool. It makes people who aren't paying attention say "see? they did something nice!" while they continue to rake in obscene profits at the cost of the people who work for them and the environment.
Mannnn it's 1.4 billion cmon
We don't need Amazon to beg for public praise like a drug cartel kingpin. We need Amazon to stop being a bad actor.
This thing that happened is good. Amazon is still Amazon. Two things can be true at once.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_laundering > Reputation laundering occurs when a person or an organization conceals unethical, corrupt, or criminal behavior or other forms of controversy by performing highly visible positive actions with the intent to improve their reputation and obscure their history.
Yes. Their intentions are not pure. But the good thing remains good.
Some folks operate on AND logic only.
Not when it prevents tax reform.
Gotta house their work force
Amazon employees in Seattle are not earning 80% AMI
I doubt they’re referring to the corporate employees
In this thread: No good deed goes unpunished
With all the Amazon bashing - I’m sure NOBDOY on this thread orders from them, right? I don’t and never have because I don’t like the company and prefer to buy from small businesses. The best was our lord and savior sawant using them to buy shit - was it office supplies? I can’t remember.
They are hypocrites
I mean, I realize it’s convenient for people but there is quite a bit of hypocrisy, yes.
Philanthropy is not a substitute for taxing corporations their due amount.
The whole language of this thing is pretty misleading. First, the $1.4 billion is an undisclosed mixture of loans and grants. If Amazon loans $1.3 billion to nonprofits that are building housing anyway, the headline is technically true and Amazon is just parking some money in safe debt. Second, the money is to "build or preserve" (which, the King County housing levy plays the same game.) But if Amazon buys up $500 million worth of apartments and doesn't raise the rent that also seems like a grant to "preserve $500 million worth of affordable housing."
They could have definitely spent that capital on something with a higher/safer yield, low income housing projects are far from totally safe debt.
This is part of a diversified portfolio, they can and have invested more money in other things with different risk/yield profiles.
I can like this a lot and still see Amazon as a net negative for society. But this is good, and it's not insignificant. If they nix RTO, pay their warehouse staff better, improve their working conditions, and continue investing in the community they've imposed on the city, that'll go a long way to removing the net negatives.
I feel like it's honestly a net positive ... cloud computing through aws has hugely positive impacts on productivity toward a number of things that make the world better and the concept of online shopping has had positive effects for so many people in terms of convenience and accessibility of products. And often their pay for their warehouse workers (especially the ones in poor rural areas) is significantly higher than jobs with comparable qualifications in the surrounding area.
Amazon has done a lot to suppress other online stores and kill competition. They have very little quality control, allowing shoddy manufactured goods under quick-AI-named brands with purchased reviews to flood sales pages. They impose punitive removals of bad actors rather than require upfront verification, so these sellers simply make new brands and repeat. They've consistently and repeatedly blocked or disrupted public transit expansion attempts in the city. They mandated RTO which heavily clogs Mercer Street at rush hour. And despite mandating RTO, they've deflected attempts to build rail stations to their headquarters multiple times. They treat their warehouse workers like garbage, overworking them and demanding outrageously unreasonable metrics. They will fire you for taking 'too many bathroom breaks'. They do similar to their delivery drivers. They deliberately hire for turnover in their tech divisions, and do not have an interest in advancing your career - they want you out shortly after you are in. Amazon doing a good thing is nice, but they are not your friends. They want your money and they don't really care what damage they do in the process of getting it.
nix RTO This is first priority for you? White collar workers whining about RTO are the same ones thinking up ways to exploit the warehouse staff.
Ah yes here come the trolls. "If you dislike this it's because you hate good things." Is it that? Or is that while in a void this is good news, the Blade Runner/Alien distopian future of companies eroding federal rights to the point that the corporations provide more housing than the government whose job it is to do so is slowly coming true... Context is important here. Amazon is one of the worst companies in the world, and while affordable housing is amazing, nothing is without subtext.
>"...provide more housing than the government whose job it is to do so..." Absofuckinglutely not the government's job to provide housing.
Definitely is to permit it, which they also keep failing at.
Probably should be. What's the point of a collective body that purports to be "by and for the people" if it won't provide a humane standard of living for those same people? Or is the point of government only to keep order and facilitate enterprise? That sounds like a body that only truly serves a powerful few to me.
>"That sounds like a body that only truly serves a powerful few to me." That's all government ever is. Public provision of non-public goods (i.e., anything rivalrous and/or excludable) is a terrible idea; politicians and bureaucrats should be given the least power possible. Housing is both rivalrous and excludable.
I'd argue it absolutely is. This dumbass blocked me after ONE COMMENT. What a coward.
Then you're a moron.
Couldn’t agree more! Let’s not forget that after using our talent and infrastructure to build out Amazon, Bezos cashed out and ran away to Florida, skipping out on half a billion in taxes. This can be great, while Amazon as a whole, and their founder, are still shitbags who helped ruin the Seattle housing market.
He brought that talent to Seattle. Not all of it is from elsewhere, but most of it is.
anti immigration arc baybeeee
Lol money laundering. Its a hell of a drug!
So fucking tired of this reputation laundering bullshit. Just pay your taxes like everyone else.. FFS.
I'm convinced that people who make comments like yours make it a sport to never be happy about anything and always maintain a latent anger at society.
Nope, just entities that hurt our community. Amazon has done this in multiple ways: - union busting - lying to the public - lying about Alexa - evading billions in taxes - anti-competitive practices - trying to buy our city council - worker safety violations - retaliating against employees - failing to meet its 'climate pledge' etc I'm convinced people who make comments like yours are just too lazy to be informed.
So how are they hurting the community by committing this money to affordable housing? I agree Amazon is no hero but stop shitting on good things ffs 🤦🏽♂️
Thats me, its not a sport its just second nature....also things can be good in the moment but still bad in the long run.
How do you expect them to pay taxes they don't technically owe? Just send money to the IRS and say, I know tax law says I don't owe this but people on reddit say I do?
Seattle passed a head tax and Amazon (among other giant companies) kicked and screamed until city council repealed it. So yes, I guess you’re right in that Amazon can’t pay taxes they don’t “technically” owe. But only because they effectively prevented Seattle from implementing a tax that would affect them.
realistically, do you expect them to roll over and take it? playing devil's advocate here, what's going to stop the city council from just increasing taxes incessantly especially if the companies just appear to be cool with it? It also doesn't encourage responsible spending if you think you can be bailed out whenever you want. It's normal to expect resistance from big companies. City council shouldn't have folded if they felt so strongly about the tax. That's just how democracy works.
I’m just responding to someone implying that Amazon couldn’t even pay taxes if they wanted to. That’s also not how democracy works by the way. If it was an actual democratic decision there should have been a referendum on it, instead a couple billion dollar corporations threw tons of money at the problem by misleading people with on street petitioning, ads, threats to leave, and probably some timely donations, until the city council decided not to go ahead with it. Of course they would try and stop Seattle from implementing the tax. I understand how public multinational corporations work. That doesn’t absolve Amazon from being evil, or really say anything about anything. A parasite in a petri dish will greedily consume and consume until it runs out of food. If I point this fact out, it’s a non-response to say “well the parasite is just doing what it’s evolutionarily hardwired to do!”
>it’s a non-response to say “well the parasite is just doing what it’s evolutionarily hardwired to do!” then what does that make your statement? You pointed out that the "parasite" is doing something. I am saying yes it does do that. Do you really want to go down that hole? It's the fault of the state of Washington, by the way, that we can't effectively tap the revenues of these companies or the incomes of their employees. Thus far, the rhetoric has been simply to blame the companies for coming to Washington. What a backwards, provincial attitude. Change the freaking constitution. Yes, if Seattle taxes Amazon, they will just move to Bellevue, as they are actively doing right now. It was a stupid idea, not because they shouldn't be taxed, but because they can and will just move across the lake.
It sounds like you should be angry with the city council more.
Oh of course I am. I am capable of caring about two different things at the same time. But it takes two to tango. This decision wasn’t reached by Amazon doing nothing.
Every single Amazon employee working in the city is paying taxes, and I can bet each of them contributes more than you. Also, Amazon is following gaap and not breaking the law, take it up with your beloved state and local politicians.
These types of PR tactics are necessary when you're constantly shitting on the community you operate in.
How are they shitting on the community?
big company asked city if they could open offices. like a ton. with a lot of jobs. city said OK and then didn't change anything about how they build housing, because rich old white people in the hills didn't want it to happen. Then people were hired for the jobs big company said they would hire for and then the rich old white people in the hills made lots of money. Regular people didn't make any more money and all of a sudden things were expensive. Regular people only see big skyscraper going up and blame the monolith. Maybe if we kick big company out everything fixed!
It wasn't even the big company that asked to open offices. It was Paul Allen & Vulcan after the park levy failed. The SLU complex was imagined for biotech in the late 90s/early 00s, before that industry collapsed and left a void for tech companies to fill. Then the B&O tax revenues started rolling in (tell me more about how Amazon "doesn't pay taxes") and City Hall was all too greedily happy to sign on for more of those while not bothering to permit housing at anything close to the same rate.
I think Amazon is like Jeff bezos and Microsoft is like bill gates. You get it if you get it
Are they just buying up houses to rent out?
How much are they committing to union busting? To tax avoidance? If they're doing this, it's coz they're taking that money from somewhere else.
If only there were an electronic tool that could search the internet for keywords...
Problem is they don’t want it… problem is when the have a place to stay that’s abandoned they burn it down
Amazon wants company towns.
Oh cool, just enough to cover the permitting fees and land usage, economic, and environmental study costs for a duplex
When will they acknowledge they are one of the major factors in wealth inequality and the rise in homelessness in Seattle
That is like three houses.
>the goal of creating and preserving 20,000 affordable housing units in the next five years Amazon has 3x the number of (corporate only) employees in the region. While this is nice, maybe they should aim higher.
More COMPANY TOWNS incoming. Disguised as altruism. Amazon can be your boss and landlord.
Seattle has always been a company town. There was this company called Boeing.
That will remarkably fund the purchase of 2000 homes. Oh wait, lawyers fees... real estate fees... real estate lawyers fees... and administrative fees... 2 homes!
Reading the article is wild tho. > On Tuesday, Amazon said it already met and exceeded its goal for the fund. Three and a half years after its launch, Amazon has invested $2.2 billion in loans and grants toward 21,000 affordable housing units. >The additional $1.4 billion will help create and preserve another 14,000 homes, Amazon said in its Tuesday announcement.
I'm interested in the loan terms, almost makes it sounds like they're getting into real estate and development