So if I understand the sequence of events right: 1) Developers are reluctant to build in a stagnant area because it would be a risky investment 2) The governmen

So if I understand the sequence of events right: 1) Developers are reluctant to build in a stagnant area because it would be a risky investment 2) The government provides property tax breaks for some anchor projects in the region 3) More development (including without tax breaks) follows and the area becomes successful, charging high rents 4) Anti-tax-break people point to the high rents and the profitability of the projects without tax breaks and argue that the tax breaks were never necessary in the first place