Not completely on board with the groupthink out here about its better to not get HQ2 and instead fill up on other satellite offices from Amazon. Reason being is that those offices are the ones more likely to be closed.
HQ2 would be Amazon not just planting a flag but a whole foundation. Leasing a handful of satellite offices is great, don't get me wrong, especially if Boston doesn't win HQ2, but its not a substitute or an equal impact. Those offices can easily be downsized or closed if Amazon buys a robotics company in say Texas and wants to consolidate there. Its doubtful a 2nd HQ moves as easily. I'd also point out the property tax revenue associated with HQ2 would most likely be much larger.
Hmmmm, for over 200 years, Washington, DC had the largest single employer on the planet. It remained a backwater only until its surrounding areas finally reached critical mass with vibrant and DIVERSE biotech, engineering, medical etc. private industries in the past 30 years. There can be no clearer example how one employer does not a healthy city make. Look at all the Fortune 500 HQs in Cincinatti, St Louis or Wilmington, DE. Boston isn't in their league for that list, but who is envious of those cities?
Several other issues with that post:
1) The potential of movement exists in the OPPOSITE direction also: More (and varied) offices could also be a greater and wider magnet environment for more and varied startups. Easier to close, yes, but also easier to increase.
2) The need for a huge initial taxpayer ransom would be far less for the organic/stealthy method. Those offices are already opening for the RIGHT and LONG Term reasons - - talent/universities/particular strengths in the particular science/industry. The HQ2 will be going to a city that either pays up or looks good TODAY. In the investment field, we call Boston's strength The Power of Diversification. You can see what a top-heavy/lack of diversification looks like in Cincinnati, St Louis or Wilmington, DE.
3) An existing/dominant HQ2 would have far more leverage in the future to exact additional taxpayer ransom versus varied satellites of Amazon. Corporations DO indeed move existing HQs. Think of the probability of moving one HQ (and really, this is just a SECOND HQ) versus moving 20+ satellite offices in 13 different fields. Boston/Mass would have to drastically change it's corporate tax policy, lose Harvard, MIT, Tufts, BU, etc or change name to Bin Laden for that second possibility to occur. The first? Could happen for any reason.
4) The fact that this is a "2nd HQ" actually makes it far easier for a future move out to occur. The term "HQ" was cleverly added by the very savvy folks at Amazon to turn on the ransom spigot from the Sucker/Desperado cities. Judging from some of the proposals already out there from Chris Christie, youtubes, etc, that spigot has predictably been turned on high.
5) Your last sentence is completely wrong. Property tax revenue would be far
less from an HQ2 versus a similar square footage amount of varied satellite offices because of the far higher incentives/ransom that would probably be attached to the HQ2 winning bid. Rodney Dangerfield's line about preferring to sleep with one "10" instead of three "fives" works well only in bed - - not economics.
6) If our metro area had much larger 50,000 student Harvard without the rest of the field, it would be in far worse shape than having a 10,000 student Harvard plus MIT, Tufts, Brandeis, BU, BC, Babson, Bentley, etc. Harvard would have far more leverage over our politicians and could get its way on far more than it does today. The area would have a much larger panic attack whenever we see those once per year columns about the possibility of it moving to Florida, etc.
