Well... a Seattle city newspaper wrote an article about the city of Seattle. It's a valid lens to examine Amazon's impact to Seattle. Your insistence on being included in a conversation about a city you don't live in is kinda weird.
Also note that I agreed with your post above, and just pointed out that Bellevue is "not part of the city." It literally is not. That's all I said.
How do you know where I live? Not that it matters but I moved to Seattle in 2011 and I have lived and worked in both Bellevue and Seattle.
ST is fixating on one aspect of Amazon's impact to the city of Seattle to advance their desired narrative. They use a hyperbolic headline to perpetuate a negative image of Amazon then correlate office space with economic contribution. Nothing in the article convinces me that Amazon has turned Seattle into a "company town'.
You response to my post was literally (emphasis mine):
> I agree. But they're not at all part of the city.
My point is that Belleuve and the rest of the eastside is much more closely related to Seattle than a place like Everett or Tacoma and so a conversation about office space should acknowledge that. People and companies are mobile between the eastside and Seattle much more than they are to the north and south. This is relevant in a conversation about office space, even if you are evaluating it from a position of what's best for Seattle itself.
Also note that I agreed with your post above, and just pointed out that Bellevue is "not part of the city." It literally is not. That's all I said.