WilliamsF1 wrote:No one said anything about tax payers money. Why is this always the issue even in a private venture?
Usually a scheme of this scale needs some form of underwriting by the local authority. Often in the form of tax breaks, infrastructure improvements, or allowing public land to be used at a cheap rate, and sometimes under writing cheap loans.
I don't know the detail of the NJ scheme, but I'd be very surprised it would be able to go ahead without some form of tax payer support.
The other reason that the tax payer often ends up as the most vulnerable is that if it fails the other developers and promoters can go off to find other money making schemes in other places. However local residents will left with a white elephant (or half a white elephant).
I made the point because some posts were saying that Bernie might lose money, but the reality is that Bernie is least likely to be hit by any losses. He always makes sure the promoters, developers and local tax payers carry the risk.