This Bloomberg Businessweek online report, citing this Harvard study, having this chapter.
If, as some might assert, the "free market" is the best protector of consumer interests, why exactly did the past council thumb their noses at market factors in order to give so much subsidy away, to allow the Indiana man and his firm the chance to make a king-sized rental killing? What? Landlord worship? And they bought that Town Center land out of foreclosure, overpaying for the prospects that adventure offered, instead of allowing "market forces" to play out?
A deliberate will, to compete with private sector forces? It remains a puzzle.
You want another puzzle?
What's it done for you?