But why would that have to happen? I don't get it? They're getting a sweet deal here, they don't wanna be in Connecticut or they'd be building it there. Utopia fell through, and now we're getting studios, we're obviously a slightly more tempting place to be. So why not try to integrate this up-and-coming job sector into a more efficient infrastructure that can secure it's growth and accessability? You can't tell me that there aren't 60 developable acres somewhere near Jefferson blvd., where the access to buses, trains, planes, and cars is more conduscive to really growing a new sector without putting the strain of traffic and development of related businesses and residences in a predominantly rural area. Those acres are there. It costs more, so I could understand THAT being a justification for lending a tax-credit for "costs related to construction" (which, as of now, I just see as blindly subsidizing a business venture). It'd actually be worth it, in that case, because you'd be making an investment in placing a new job sector in the place that it'd be most able to grow and create a hub where related businesses can be, without perpetuating poor development standards, wasteful use of our natural land, and a total reliance on the automobile.
I'm sure that this stuff probably just never crossed any of their minds, but that's what I mean when I say that there is a total lack of vision in our state leadership. It is THEIR JOB to think that far ahead in the game and make sure that we can avoid problems down the road, not to try to patch up every hole that comes their way with quick-fixes and sweet deals.
Edited by glassandsteel, 10 February 2008 - 05:57 PM.
0
mental757, on Feb 7 2008, 01:58 PM, said:
