I agree it is a very complex issue and there are points being made from both sides (yours and mine).
However I think what has been lost here is the entire basis of my post which is, what impact will it ultimately have?
Will there be jobs created or jobs lost. Right now imho it seems that in the long run there would be a loss of jobs as once Revel trims it's staff to operating size, there will be less people employed than work at the casinos that statistics show might close.

I have to agree that McDevitt's opposition to all of this is biased as a result of Revel not coming to the table to allow unions in prior to the doors being opened. However one might also say that the reason for that might be that capitulation at this point by Revel might also create another stumbling block for financing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Revel would rather operate as a non union casino but under the NLRB laws the employees always have the right to vote on union representation later.

As far as the tax break, in NYC they also had a similar stimulus thing called Empire Zone tax rates however in this situation you are only looking at what Revel might collect but what about the revenues that are lost by these other properties that might close?
The end result still is that the shortfall will come from the taxpayers as usual.

As you said, a complex issue but the bottom line is what was clearly shown at the opening of Borgata that it did NOT grow the market. It only watered it down
The first thing that needs to be done is have effective marketing to have players return and STAY.
Sure many will come to oooh and aaah make a few visits and then return to their local haunts.
The trick is to keep them there. THAT is what should be addressed first