I don’t see this as an idealistic perspective vs. a practical one but as competing values or trade offs. It’s possible that the SF economy and tax revenue stream will eventually be better off because of the deal (although, as I wrote in the post, research shows that these kind of deals fail often), but is a little more potential economic activity worth favoring some companies over others and creating a culture of corporate dependency on government (once you give out one deal everybody else wants one)? If these smaller companies do go out of business, is that something government should actively participate in? This kind of government intervention certainly isn’t a free market policy.

Also, a free market has nothing to do with one or two or multiple governments competing with one another (i.e. a market of governments), a free market, also called “free enterprise” or “private enterprise,” is made of private entities competing with one another freely without extensive government intervention. I understand why city leaders feel the need to compete and to cut special deals like these, but I would hope they’d trust in the free market rather than their own abilities to manage the economy.

Derek Monson