Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Corporatejay if you would bother to read my history of posts in this thread you'd find that the substance of opposition is that the net benefits are negative to the city. There is a sizeable consensus of impartial peer reviewed research to support this.
You simply wave your hand and say that there are net benefits, run the numbers or look it up.
|
A) I have.
B) I didn't wave my hand say there are net benefits. I was using that to diffuse the argument that whether the owners are billionaires or not is irrelevant.
C) Every city isn't the same. There is a difference between full and partial subsidy. I gave you an example earlier of a situation where the city could grant the Flames a 50 year lease on the west end at $1 in exchange for the remediation of the land, so that in 50 years, when the city goes to redevelop the west village, the city doesn't have to incur any environmental clean up cost and then gets both the revenue from the increased tax base in the 50 year intervening period and the time after. If the economics worked on this type of deal would you support it?