It's not that it was "too different", it's that it was "too evil". Google was trying to use public resources to build a Google-owned neighborhood where they controlled the lives of everyone within, and were interested in being able to levy their own taxes and exempt themselves from existing laws.
> proposed taking a portion of Toronto property taxes, development fees and increased land value to build a smart city on the eastern waterfront [...] which would amount to an estimated $6 billion over 30 years
6 billion dollars isn't astronomical for a major urban development project.
And Google being paid based on increases in property taxes gives them an incentive to increase the value of the land, which is the exact incentive the city would want them to have.
There's a huge gap between the article you link and OP's claim that Google was "interested in being able to levy their own taxes and exempt themselves from existing laws".
> Google being paid based on increases in property taxes...
... isn't what the article or Alphabet were talking about. They were discussing being paid property taxes, period, not simply taking the property tax delta caused by their real estate development.
And anyway, if I buy a house and pay property taxes, then improve the property so that my property taxes increase, I don't get to keep that increase. Why should Alphabet? But _even this_ is less radical than what Alphabet was proposing, as I've explained above. Alphabet was directly seeking a subsidy from the city, to be taken as a percentage of property taxes.
You may not think of this as unacceptable, in which case I wish you luck attracting such an offer to your own city. But over here, we don't want it.
