Originally Posted by
mwilbert
I really think you have to look at individual projects, rather than saying that the whole idea of subsidized projects is bad. The idea of brownfield credits, or of historic preservation credits, for example, make perfect sense to me.
What is bad is subsidizing projects in idiotic locations [[I will continue to harp upon the insanity of the redevelopment of Herman Gardens), and subsidizing projects that are massively uneconomic and/or destructive of the urban fabric. This project, assuming it actually does get funded, looks like a nicely scaled project in a completely viable location. There isn't any reason to think it won't be successful.