Location isn't everything

I don't think I find the methodology behind the latest Keystone Research Center report all that useful. Their point is that the state's system of economic development subsidies has been better in recent years than the last time they did a study on the subject (2003), because it has incorporated "smart growth" concepts and subsidized developments in older brownfield areas instead of encouraging sprawl in greenfields. The problem with this is that it doesn't take into account whether any of these subsidies were really necessary, whether they created the promised jobs, and whether those jobs were good jobs. Keystone more or less admits as much up-front, by saying that the report can't take local nuances into account, and that the report should only be a jumping-off point for studying these subsidies. That's fair enough as far as it goes, I guess.