I think the whole traffic congestion and housing price would be the deal breaker in SoCal.KiloRomeo said:Interesting. Amazon's RFP indicated criteria including that the hosting City must be "45mins or less from an international airport" and also have a "population of at least 1M residents." - that's a big nope and nope for Irvine. But I'm sure IrvineCo money can get them reconsidering those stipulations.
undecided said:Amazon is a great company, no doubt. I'm sure wherever they go, the local economy will be given a huge boost. While the idea of them opening a second HQ in Irvine sounded appealing to me at first, I'm having second thoughts. Perhaps because I'm not in the IT industry.
But look at how things have unfolded in Silicon Valley. People pay $1M there for studios. If we all of a sudden get an influx of high earners, that's gonna push up prices all across the board for everyone. My morning cup of coffee might be $12. A combo from Mickey D's might cost $15.
It's great for existing homeowners, as the value of their homes skyrockets. But unless your income also has a similar trajectory, now you're stuck. You effectively are incentivized to not move up in home, because going from a 2br to a 3br, or a 3br to a 4 br, might effectively increase your property tax base by 500k-1M.
I'd like to hear counterarguments. Perhaps I'm being shortsighted. I like Irvine the way it is now, and don't want it to grow too fast too soon.
KiloRomeo said:Interesting. Amazon's RFP indicated criteria including that the hosting City must be "45mins or less from an international airport" and also have a "population of at least 1M residents." - that's a big nope and nope for Irvine. But I'm sure IrvineCo money can get them reconsidering those stipulations.
No counter arguments. This will fast track it to grow to a mega city. The gap between have and have nots will widen. Tons of congestion, etc.undecided said:Amazon is a great company, no doubt. I'm sure wherever they go, the local economy will be given a huge boost. While the idea of them opening a second HQ in Irvine sounded appealing to me at first, I'm having second thoughts. Perhaps because I'm not in the IT industry.
But look at how things have unfolded in Silicon Valley. People pay $1M there for studios. If we all of a sudden get an influx of high earners, that's gonna push up prices all across the board for everyone. My morning cup of coffee might be $12. A combo from Mickey D's might cost $15.
It's great for existing homeowners, as the value of their homes skyrockets. But unless your income also has a similar trajectory, now you're stuck. You effectively are incentivized to not move up in home, because going from a 2br to a 3br, or a 3br to a 4 br, might effectively increase your property tax base by 500k-1M.
I'd like to hear counterarguments. Perhaps I'm being shortsighted. I like Irvine the way it is now, and don't want it to grow too fast too soon.
OCtoSV said:IF they had built the airport instead of Great Park, then maybe.....that was the dumbest NIMBY-driven decision I've ever seen.
irvine buyer said:I think one important consideration is whether the talent that Amazon is looking to hire would locate to this city. In this regard, Irvine has an advantage.
I agree. Because, NIMBY.iacrenter said:OCtoSV said:IF they had built the airport instead of Great Park, then maybe.....that was the dumbest NIMBY-driven decision I've ever seen.
Are you insane? Irvine RE is better off with the GP versus another airport.
Silicon Valley would have the easy transferable talent pool.Liar Loan said:irvine buyer said:I think one important consideration is whether the talent that Amazon is looking to hire would locate to this city. In this regard, Irvine has an advantage.
Really? What advantage would that be?