Right. Forget about waived SDC's, free utilities for 3 months, free trees, or whatever. This is the sentence that Homer and Dike will likely notice:

We need rentals and $80,000 to $130,000 homes so people can move up after they get established here and buy a home.

Anyone else here see a problem for these guys?

What's the product and projected longevity of the innovation, location of the 'plant/office/warehouse/big box - how is the land zoned and how does local government respond avoid or capitalize -- if they have no tax base - or no money?

They turn to the state which is +2 billion in the hole.

It takes investment (money) to make investment. Which happens first - government or private and is it just a case "Chicken-Egg"?

$ in, $ out -- as long as there's public money in the deal.

So much can happen right there in Boardman - once a hub for milling and now a ghost town. It's such much better to upgrade the current infrastructure than to use new/farm/ranch land, isn't it?

It's such much better to upgrade the current infrastructure than to use new/farm/ranch land, isn't it?

No.

That's just code for highering planners, subsidized develoment and pushing the higher density mixed use model that ends up costing more and doesn't pencil out.

All for the notion of land preservation when land is abundant everywhere.

Ben, if your argument is that we ought to use the most economical approach (to the public) for developable land, nothing is more expensive than new/farm/ranch land.

And that being said, I would agree that the way they are going about infill with subsidies is idiotic.