The mistake you are making is believing Google should be paid at all for their own project they initiated for their own benefit. This is something Google wants to do, not something Toronto wanted or needed. If Google wants to use cities as guinea pigs, the cities should not be paying the price at all. Arguably, Google should be paying Toronto for the opportunity.
New York decided it didn't really need to pay for Amazon to come there. Wisconsin learned how well paying Foxconn to set up a factory there worked out. Governments need to stop selling out their citizens to big tech companies, and start using tax dollars to benefit their constituents. Companies with tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in reserve cash do not need handouts.
You are conflating completely unrelated events. Amazon getting $3B tax cuts to build their own office there is in noway comparable to Google building homes, transportation and factories for a city.
It's not Google's "job" to build your house, and you calling it "their own project" doesn't mean they should do it for free. If you don't want their help, go ahead and say no, but to expect this to be done for free is ridiculous and naive, and also in no way comparable to the Amazon situation.
You are mistaken for what google wanted to do. They are not "building houses" or "transportation" or "factories"
Google wanted to harvest data from citizens of Toronto so that they can understand what people do in a city.
It's a part of their data collection goal, and so they asked Toronto "what would it take for you to let us do this" and Toronto said "we need xyz, transport, etc" and then Google came back with the proposal, with the caveat that they are able to collect the data from whoever/whatever tenants move in, from both commercial entities as well as private citizens, and data mine it. It is in no way something Google is doing "for" Toronto. Toronto has enough property developers. The land that this is to take place on belongs to the city, and that's why it's never been really developed.
I would think data of this kind is worth enough that Google should actually be paying the city. At least then there's a proper exchange.
I would also welcome it if the city opened it up to a proper bidding process to let others put in their vision as well.
I kinda get what's happening. The Reuters article distills over 12-16 months of civic debate and consultations into one small article that entirely misrepresents what Sidewalk Labs is trying to do.
Google wanted a way to see what people are doing on a macro-and-micro city level - like being able to apply Google Analytics on a real-life basis.
So they started discussions with Toronto to plan a kind of smart city. These discussions have been going on in the background for about a year, with media blitz, public discussions, etc and that's what the last sentence in the Reuters article is about: " Toronto City Councillor Paula Fletcher expressed concerns about the proposal.
“I was terribly shocked because this was not within the scope of the project. I think it’s a big credibility problem for everybody.”
The article is deliberately hiding critical parts of the project that has been front and center in Toronto civics debate - indeed, the scope of the project (the new Google office, the data collection, etc) has been on vice motherboard, major tech media, and has been on hacker news multiple times. Mostly centered around the Google/Alphabet/Sidewalk Lab's vision of what a "smart city" within the city of Toronto would look like.
You are missing huge pieces of the puzzle, entirely the goal of what they wanted to do, and various posters have been linking facts about the project, and not just the misrepresentations stated in the Reuters article.
in the article
" The Quayside project will span 12 acres of Toronto and, while still in the consulting stages, is shaping up to be a sensor-laden information smorgasbord for Sidewalk Labs and any other company collecting data in the area. "
....
"a member of a municipal advisory panel on data usage resigned from her position over data collection and transparency concerns with the project."
Her resignation letter is linked and it contains real information - first hand primary source information. There are also city council meeting minutes talking specifically about Sidewalk Lab's very explicitly stated data collection goals if that's not enough "sourcing" for you.
Are you arguing purely because you think Google is never doing nothing wrong and that all residents of Toronto are kidding when they say they know what's going to happen in their city? Do you live in Toronto and do you have a vested interested in how the city operates? To be upfront, I live in Toronto, and bike through the Port Lands on a weekly basis.
I'm trying to find some common ground here but it appears you have not done any research on this project but are speaking only in general terms. I have not spoken ill about google except in specifics about what they actually want to do with this city experiment, and all you've stated are handwaving without any references.
Perhaps you're unaware, but a major part of the Waterfront Toronto project is, in fact, a Google office. A decent chunk of the higher class housing built there is also likely to be for Google employees. An article from 2017 suggests teams from unrelated branches of Google, such as Google Brain, may have personnel relocated there. So, yes, it's actually very comparable to the Amazon situation.
And again, this isn't Toronto contracting out for infrastructure they want or need. This is Google, who set out to experiment with running cities, seeking a location to let them use as a testbed. The buildings and infrastructure assembled there will be for Google's benefit, not for Toronto's.
Do you have a source for that? The linked article states:
> Sidewalk Labs outlined its project for a light railway transit, 2,500 homes where 40 percent would be below market price, and a tall-timber factory they project will create 4,000 jobs.
Unless Googler's are planning to work at a timber factory, something doesn't line up.
> Google (googl, -0.84%) will move some 300 employees in Toronto to the new space, one of the sources said, including a team from its Google Brain unit led by artificial intelligence pioneer Geoffrey Hinton.
New York decided it didn't really need to pay for Amazon to come there. Wisconsin learned how well paying Foxconn to set up a factory there worked out. Governments need to stop selling out their citizens to big tech companies, and start using tax dollars to benefit their constituents. Companies with tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in reserve cash do not need handouts.