You're assuming those are requirements. What's much more likely is that Google opened up the "bidding" between cities and said "whoever gives us the best deal goes first." Kansas gave them the best deal.

This is pretty much the status quo for major infrastructure projects. Look at what happens with new sports stadiums between New York and New Jersey -- they each bend over backwards to see who can provide the most subsidies.

Why do you think New York wouldn't be able to provide a competitive "bid" to be one of the next cities? I can see why they wouldn't want to provide e.g. free office space as a result of the difference in local real estate prices, but that doesn't mean they can't offer something else. Tax incentives are a popular staple for this sort of thing. And NYC has the huge advantage that Google can wire more customers for less money as a result of the high population density, which means New York wouldn't have to offer the most concessions in order to be the most attractive.

I was thinking specifically of waiving permit fees, outsourced inspections, and colocated staff with authority to make decisions on the spot. If at least the first two aren't requirements I'd be surprised.

Permit pile-on has killed quite a few nascent populist telecom infrastructure projects in recent memory. Commercial projects generally have enough revenue involved to be worth working around the issues.