People from the outside love to take a local Detroit story and spin it in all sorts of ways to fit their political narrative. Don't fall for that, especially if you have a 3-digit IQ [[100 is average btw ).
I don't know if this was aimed at me, but I would certainly take issue if it was, as I did no spinning here.

I posted an article to encourage conversation/discussion/debate.

I don't think the article was anti-Gilbert polemic, I think it raised important questions of public policy.

I certainly did not vilify Mr. Gilbert, his investments or Detroit.

What I have done is take issue with responses that are virulent, bashing, off-topic, reactionary and stupid.

Yours was not one; but there have been a few.

The whole article is based on the assumption that Detroit had a secret pot of $700M in cash.
I'm not at all convinced that was the premise of the article.

I would read it as follows; if one had chosen to expend said funds on infrastructure and those things that ameliorate quality of life and make an area desirable to live in; you might have attracted the same level of investment without using the tax credit.

The argument goes, that in such a case you get the investment, the on-going tax revenue; AND the infrastructure.

No there was not a giant pot of cash, but in trading away future revenues, you starve the government of many of the resulting benefits of the investment, for a period of time.

Thus delaying infrastructure investments and the like.

The argument that there was no alternative source of funds is not entirely accurate as a variety of options would exist to lever that money, through taxes, tolls, fees, asset sales, and deficit-financing; particularly from higher levels of government.

All of that is not to argue that the investments here were evil or that Gilbert was.

I see no reason for either/or of such extreme proportions.

It is entirely possible to accept that Gilbert made good investments, which have helped Detroit; while also accepting that he might have made some or all of those anyway, in the fullness of time, were a different strategy employed vis a vis public funds.

Its less a discussion of what happened, in as much as that's done; vs how to formulate public policy going forward.

Income inequality, health care, affordable housing are all huge issues that merit further and separate discussions.
Sure they do; but they are also impacted, for better and/or for worse, by how governments expend money on other things; and tax-expenditures which forego future revenues are one such thing.

I'm not judging the choice adversely here, but arguing for thoughtful analysis and good public policy going forward.

If, for instance, one is a strong believer in this tool, why not use it to help Detroit's poorest citizens directly?

Why not let them deduct from their property tax any money spent on curb appeal, state-of-good-repair of derelict/at-risk properties, or investments that reduce crime/provide security [[window locks, cameras, lights on motion-detectors)?

Why not let small business make similar write-offs?

One consideration of good public policy is whether a large number of citizens can benefit from a program vs only a tiny minority.

Another is to consider when a benefit does go only to a few or the one, whether there is a compelling reason for doing so.

Perhaps that was the case here. But the question merits asking.