Editorial: HQ2 bids gave Amazon lots of options | TribLIVE.com

Editorial: HQ2 bids gave Amazon lots of options


The Amazon announcement Tuesday of a new nonsortable fulfillment center near Pittsburgh International Airport was well- received. It was like Allegheny County got an unexpected rose from a TV “Bachelor.”

It’s a $30 million investment. It means 800 full- time jobs will be created with $15 per hour paychecks. It increases Amazon’s 10,000-person workforce in Pennsylvania by 8%.

And it’s only costing the state $1.6 million in job creation tax credits.

Sure, it’s not the 50,000 jobs that would have come with Pittsburgh being selected as Amazon’s HQ2 last year, but it also isn’t coming with the same $556 million package of local incentives plus up to $4.5 billion in grants and $100 million in transportation improvements from the state.

The HQ2 bid submitted by the PGHQ2 partnership identified 35 development sites for Amazon, the largest retailer in the world.

Pittsburgh was passed over by Amazon in November when the company opted to split its HQ2 plans between a Washington, D.C.-adjacent area of Virginia and the Long Island City section of New York. By February, the New York portion was pulled amid political opposition.

But it seems the nationwide scavenger hunt for a second Seattle was less like an arranged marriage and more like signing up for internet dating. It gained one of the world’s largest companies — and its founder and world’s richest man Jeff Bezos — a little black book of cities and the profiles that showed just how badly they wanted Amazon in the backyard.

The Pittsburgh fulfillment center is the sixth expansion announcement made since the HQ2 decisions that included a new “Operations Center of Excellence” in Nashville.

A Mississippi fulfillment center mirrors the Allegheny County proposal. In March, a tech hub with 800 jobs was announced for Austin and in April another with 400 jobs was trumpeted in Denver. Two northern Ohio cities are getting robotic fulfillment centers with a total of 2,500 full-time jobs.

Austin was an HQ2 favorite like Pittsburgh. Denver made it to the top 20. Akron and Rossford weren’t the specific cities that submitted Ohio proposals; but the state kicked in a 10-year tax credit, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. A Mississippi bid also was submitted.

More jobs are a great thing, and this deal appears to be costing much less than the HQ2 bid.

But all cities and states need to get out of the practice of paying companies to do business. It’s a great way to get left at the altar.

Categories: Opinion | Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.