But this isn't some "in general" deal to pay hundreds of millions to keep some ho-hum factory employing a couple hundred employees. We're talking about a very unique deal involving billions of dollars invested from Amazon and tens of thousands of well-educated, well-paid employees.

Special pleading? Why would this deal have a different outcome than others?

To be fair; their biggest example is a company pulling out after functionally going bankrupt. That's more to do with 'be careful who you play ball with' and general risk of doing business at all than method used. They complain they aren't getting tax revenue they planned ~15 years later - but that also is compared to not getting any revenue from the company not being located there in the first place.

Do i want my city to give Amazon a huge incentive package? Probably not, I think we're moving in a good direction already. Would I be upset if they promised significant public transit improvements as a lure to Amazon? Not at all; long overdue civic improvements that likely will never get approved else-wise.

> not getting any revenue from the company not being located there in the first place

This has to be balanced against the cost to the municipality over the years the company would have been there. The tax breaks and incentives may generate revenue, but as the story notes, the fully burdened cost to the government may wipe out any additional tax revenue. It is proper to ask "what additional costs did taxpayers bear that they wouldn't have if the company had not located there?"

Agreed - it's a balance.