I am for brownfield tax credits if the value of the credit is pegged to the cost of remediation of the parcel in question. If it's more it becomes unfair to other businesses or individuals. Also, the end goal should be threefold: get a site cleaned up, developed, and returned to the tax rolls. If it doesn't do [[or need) all three, it shouldn't be a brownfield tax credit. There are merits to other kinds of development tax credits [[for historic preservation, or to act as a catalyst in a chronically underdeveloped area), but they should be considered on specific merit, not lumped into the brownfield category.
I agree with the thought that the Hudson's site does not seem to qualify in any way for a brownfield tax credit. Perhaps it would had Gilbert had to take down the old building, but he has acquired rights to build on a ready-to-build base. Additionally, while being a large project, it is almost perfectly situated downtown for any kind of use. It should need less government incentive to develop than anything else downtown.