Infrastructure is created to accommodate commercial interests, to the benefit of the community. To an extent, incentives are open to all. But when a unique force multiplier shows an interest, government will most certainly play a role as negotiator on behalf of the community. It's not new or unusual. It happens in real estate development all the time. They just aren't the biggest corporation in the world, so this is on a much grander scale. This was an opportunity to multiply an investment for years to come. Projections were to invest 3 bil and take back 9 bil or something - that's not a crystal ball. It can go wrong. It can also go very well. It can create infrastructure in transformative ways that improves quality of life in the area, enhances opportunities for local businesses, and other stuff - internships, educational partnerships, etc.

If you believe in urban renewal programs for all qualified comers, it follows that govt should be able to competitively bid for transformative opportunities. That's all NY did and I see nothing improper in it. Dozens of cities and states did this. And I'm fully cognizant of ways this can go wrong, and inevitable challenges of displacement, congestion, potential mismanagement and malfeasance, and all the things that always accompany urban renewal. This would just be on a much grander scale.