I'm currently on the fence regarding this one... while I agree that this certainly could be helpful to cities that need something like this, I also agree with SamSpade that I don't really like the idea of leaving the choice to the subjective decision of an independent government body regarding which cities get aid. If Section 2 had more rigid guidelines that reduced or even eliminated the need for a bureaucratic organization to administer it, I would be much more in favor of it.
No, no, no... ALL cities fitting the requriments in S.1 get aid/incentives. The point of an independent body is to determine the level of aid/incentives given. It's either that, or a centralised quota based system that wouldn't be as effective.
Oh, whoops. I misundestood what the organization was for.
I still am not convinced that an independent organization would be more effective, though. As others have noted, wouldn't this leave it open to subjectiveness, which would inevitably lead to the possibility of corruption? If you can show how the independent organization method of doing it is better than a more rigid, objective method, my mind is certainly changeable here, but at the moment I'm not sure.
Note the fact that S.3 is more of a guideline than anything else. Also note the use of "wherever possible".
The point of S.3 is to bring back a little bit of confidence and pride to the distressed cities, which will have the effect of helping other businesses (especially smaller shops) to thrive.
Okay, so Section 3 is just a guideline, but I still don't see its purpose. Why should industries with historical importance be given priority? Citizens care more about whether or not they have a job, period, not whether or not their job is in an industry with historical importance.
