Nor should the city bias the casino, to favor the gambler so he cannot go broke. Simple ideas, eh?
Capitalism is a casino. The paradigm every libertarian will tug your sleeve and tell you of is the market efficiently reallocates. The efficient survive and the inefficient are removed and their assets reallocated. "Removing inefficiencies in the system" is when somebody or some LLC goes into bankruptcy or insolvency. The paradigm is you take risks with your wealth, in anticipation of favorable outcomes. Risk-reward run the system. In a casino you do not bet the wheel expecting to lose unless your gambling problem is really severe.
Developers are gamblers - not to be given free "bankruptcy insurance" by anyone's city, especially mine, Ramsey.
You pay to play. You lose, next up. No sops or bail-outs. Directly or indirectly manipulating supply-demand for other market players to favor one over the other is verboten.
All animals on Animal Farm are equal.
In land dealings, developers frequently aim to leverage bank money. Great, until you feel the liquidity pinch of a down market, too much inventory of a kind not moving as hoped, and payments due as and when bargained. The friendly banker while payments are current changes face.
Per the casino analogy key bankruptcy code provisions for business are seven and eleven. Chapter 7 is for bone picking at a clearly dead carcass. Reallocating the assets. Chapter 11 is the work-out chapter. Every creditor defers a little on hope the venture lives through a liquidity pinch and prospers as an "efficient" survivors of casino play. All of that is between debtor and creditors. Private parties. The City of Ramsey belongs on the sideline. Not favoring anyone, not bailing anyone out. Slumping market demand is a risk of business. Misguessing the market and getting stuck with inventory likewise is a private profit-seeking risk.
Needing to service debt while attaining less than a forecast cash flow is the other side of the coin from gaining higher profits using leverage.