This is much better a tax break than a city bidding for an amazon HQ with a custom tax break deal that they have to compete with other cities!
It's quite literally what the article explains.
> they did work as employees and got paid, which brings in economic activity to a depressed region.
The regions are tiny, walkable across in the article. They're not bringing in workers to live, build a family and spend within a large metro area - they're "a space nearby a university". The economic activity brought in is a small number of employees buying some coffee, maybe lunch and then going home.
> Seems to be exactly what the tax break is intending.
You think that spend in co-working spaces is what the government wants to give up hundreds of millions of dollars for?
I strongly doubt that the outcome here is the intent of the tax break, which seems to be "pump money into poor areas and we'll let you off the CGT on the amount you invested in the area".
She "re-invests" a thousand dollars by starting a company that is just a few people in some co-working spaces, and walks away a few years later with hundreds of millions extra.
If she'd started a major factory employing large numbers of people in the local area then sure, that seems like the intent.