IS the current "revitalization" of Greater Downtown real?

[Bham1982]

Here, you never responded last time: http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...411#post370411

And I think there's a third thread out there where I started rattling off projects in Chicago when you tried to pull that "subsidy" crap again.

You're having a hard time following the conversation.

Again, the claim was that all cities do this, for all their projects downtown.

You keep citing one city, and projects not downtown, so completely irrelevent to the conversation. I never said struggling, poor neighborhoods should never receive govt. assistance.

Chicago is an outlier, TIF subsidies are outliers, and even Chicago is nothing like Detroit. They aren't subsidizing grocery stores, restaurants, etc. downtown and in the yuppie areas.

Yes, they have used TIF subsides in marginal areas like the West Side [[and no, this is not a desirable area; if it were a desirable area, obviously they wouldn't be spending $7 million for a place to buy grocieries).

Like I wrote earlier, when you bring the deal team together on one of these deals, the subsidy question is not generally one of "will we subsidy?" but, rather, "what type of subsidy package can we put together?"

And that's exactly why downtown Detroit isn't revitalized. There's no market yet. In prosperous cities, the question isn't "What will govt. provide the developers", it's "What will developers provide the govt."

Just stop. It's the same old canard about subsidies and it's disproven every time.

What is disproven every time? What are you even talking about?

If an area needs massive grants to stay afloat, it isn't revitalizing. I could build superluxury condos in River Rouge, given the proper subsidies. It doesn't mean River Rouge is revitalized just because the govt. pays someone to build something.