INSIDE: In Denver’s courting of Amazon, officials should remember the taxpayers.

Civic and elected officials are abuzz at the prospect of luring retail giant Amazon to Denver, and little wonder why. In looking to create a second headquarters on the scale of its massive holdings in Seattle, the company promises to invest $5 billion and fill 50,000 well-paying jobs in a gleaming new corporate campus expected to be larger than the Pentagon.

The Mile High City could use a top-25 company to continue diversifying its economy. The innovative professionals Amazon would hire and attract would enhance our entrepreneurial culture. The kinds of ancillary businesses attracted by a second Amazon headquarters would add to the growth and opportunities across the metro area.

Count us among those hopeful of attracting such a worldclass corporation to our fair city. Also count us among those proud to see a New York Times analysis of candidates that ranked Denver as the should-be first choice for Amazon’s second HQ, based on a review of the company’s extensive bidding criteria. Clearly, the forward-thinking and hard work of many officials in Denver, the Front Range and the state are to be praised.

That said, we hope officials involved in the bid keep the taxpayers in mind. Clearly, the company is interested in pitting cities against each other to reap tax exemptions and other perks that lessen the cost of its investment. (Note: Amazon is quite a wealthy company.)

Denver’s elected officials should remember the huge public investment its taxpayers and taxpayers throughout the Regional Transportation District already have made to help position us for such a bid. For example, Amazon wants a metro area equipped with transit. RTD supplies it, and a commuter rail out to the airport to boot.

Such investments already have helped draw a surge of newcomers, and boy do we feel the strain on a daily basis. A campus of 50,000 people will require extensive new everything: infrastructure, city employees, public safety employees, school teachers, housing, and on and on.

Certainly, some incentives are warranted. But huge tax breaks that take decades to expire hardly seems a bright idea, and would be a cruel slap to those already paying to live and work and play here.

And we shouldn’t forget that Colorado’s lawmakers at the state and local level complain often and loudly about a revenue shortage in part due to limits under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and other amendments. We should also remember that state lawmakers, encouraged by cities, worked for years to create the so-called Amazon tax to recoup revenue loss and help level the playing field for local retailers.

Amazon has proven itself to be an exemplary corporate citizen. In Seattle it has invested tens of millions of dollars to offer a homeless shelter within its downtown campus. The company also has a generous higher education program for its employees. One should expect then for the company to be willing to consider an incentive package mindful of our residents.

The public and private investments that have helped position Denver in this bid would also prove attractive to other corporations. Besides, The Times’ second pick — Boston — says it’s not interested in a bidding war.

We’d love to see Amazon locate here, as long as we’re not left feeling like we’ve given away the store.