Otherwise one should argue not to mess with the little decisions like Amazon HQ but solve the actual problem - if local government can be incompetent, and we can't afford that, then all local affairs should be managed by the central government (which, as everybody knows, is always the most competent and incorruptible). Limiting local power just in case of one Amazon HQ makes no sense - if the local government being able to make mistakes is the problem, then this problem should be solved by removing this ability.
If, however, we do think it's good to allow local governments to govern, then if their decision is to bid for Amazon HQ and they think it's good for their town, why should we interfere and tell them it's not?
The thing is, it can be a terrible idea, the government can still do it, and we can then elect new officials to replace them. These things aren't mutually exclusive. The problem is, voting out the idiots that gave away all the town's tax money to Amazon doesn't mean you get the money back. The town is still FUBAR by the debt and infrastructure strain, which now limits the ability of the new government to make proper decisions which leads to calls of incompetency which leads to them being voted out etc etc etc.
>>If, however, we do think it's good to allow local governments to govern, then if their decision is to bid for Amazon HQ and they think it's good for their town, why should we interfere and tell them it's not?
Really? Just defer to authority? There's a wide range of options between "Let the government do whatever it wants if that's what it thinks is right" and "Never let the government do anything because it upsets someone". People protest decisions all the time. Government officials make mistakes and implement bad policy ideas all the time. Government is a living thing. The town can say "let's do this stupid thing that will ruin us" and the people can rise up, make sure that doesn't happen, and elect an official that will put a law on the books making sure that thing never happens. AND THEN, 20 years later when circumstances have completely changes and the whole picture is different, they can then remove those restrictions as for being antiquated and problematic! Democracy in action!
Sure, but tax laws can be changed. In fact, if the town inhabitants tell Amazon now "we do not support the deal our management has made, and will kick them out and manage things differently", Amazon probably would not consider this deal a done thing - it's much easier to change taxes than to move headquarters.
> The town is still FUBAR by the debt and infrastructure strain
So, the solution is to make upstream government to prevent downstream government from ever making a mistake, because if downstream government makes a mistake, it can have long-term consequences. But upstream government can't make such mistakes, presumably? The only way it works that I can see is that because you can't prove a hypothetical, you can't win an argument for doing something - because doing something can always lead to a mistake, while if you are doing nothing, you can't conclusively prove doing something would be better, since it's a hypothetical. So, the ideal situation is when any action of the local government that can potentially lead to a mistake is banned.
> Really? Just defer to authority?
Do you have any other choice? Somebody has to make the decision. Either it's the inhabitants of the town, as represented by the government they themselves elected, or it's the central government which of course always knows better and has everybody's best interest in mind and is never corrupt or mistaken. Who else would that be? The decision has to be made somewhere by somebody. Some people here advocate it should be centralized government because local governments can do stupid things. This makes no sense.
Or, we can take poll on HN and mandate by law that everybody should do whatever it says. That would surely work wonders.
> Government is a living thing.
Surely, but what is being advocated here is to take the authority from local government, because it can lead to a bad outcome. As if authority of the central government can't.
Then the Seattle city should be in ecstasy now. But I think from the news I read, the locals seem worried, lest happy about it.
Because the data shows it won't be wild for your town. It won't reverse economic decline, and everyone's lives will not improve. You are being prevented from locking your local governing body into a poor deal (whether because you don't know better as a politician, or because you do know better but don't care, as you'll be out of office by the time it matters [which happens so often it's cliche at this point]). I might be more amiable if you're willing to personally guarantee the financial benefits out of your own wealth, so you have skin in the game (alternatively, the law could require a supermajority of voters support the measure, with a minimum voter turnout requirement).
These measures to protect against tragedy of the commons are not new, nor the arguments such as yours against such protections.