I actually liked the idea.. until you made the HQ2 comparison. Now I'm trying to find a reason why subsidising young, educated, upper-middle class professional

I actually liked the idea.. until you made the HQ2 comparison. Now I'm trying to find a reason why subsidising young, educated, upper-middle class professionals is morally defensible, considering there are still millions of children in the US alone growing up in poverty and chronic food insecurity. I understand the cash flow may end up net positive for Tulsa when/if people end up staying. But that's not guaranteed. In fact, this is a self-selected group of people defined by exactly their willingness to move when there are opportunities elsewhere. And there's the risk that it just sets of a competitive race-to-the-bottom. I guess we'd all like our taxes to be cut in half. But US tax rates are already extremely low. The sort of targeted tax break for a very specific slice of the population also feels...icky? It's no longer progressive taxation with everyone contributing according to their means. It's "I'm young, single, and work with buzzwords. Therefore I don't pay taxes." (10 years later: "I have children and my wife is sick. They know I can't leave and my tax rate quintupled". Edit: just noticed it's privately financed, undercutting the meat of my complaints. But only until some other city uses public money to keep up.