It sounds as though "Observer" is having a recurring problem defining "Business Friendly". Wouldn't one think being "business friendly" as only an extension of being friendly on a personal or individual level? This would mean treating all folks as you yourself would want to be treated? With that all said, how friendly is a city to the average taxpayers? Is a city forcing folks out of a public park for petitioning against a forced tax be friendly? How friendly is a city delivering supoenas by police, in big Black SUVs to good decent folks, forcing them downtown for depositions, just because they wanted a voice in taxation? How friendly is it to the everyday taxpayer to see others treated special in regards to having the city lease their private failing venture with taxpayers money? How friendly is it to the everyday taxpayer when the vice mayor decides not to honor the competitive bidding process, thereby costing the taxpayers more money. How friendly is it for the Housing Authority and the city to try and spend close to 2Xs the median sales price to build public housing when there are other alternatives? How friendly is it to the average taxpayer to see the city forgive loans for special non-profits? How friendly is it when the vice mayor leads to force city sanitation onto the residents when over 71% of those residents were satisfied with their private trash hauler? How friendly is it when the vice mayor leads 3 water & sewer rate increases only to turn around and take $2.1 million from the same fund to provide utilities to private riverfront property? In closing, Observer, one might find being friendly to the lowest taxpayer might allow for more trade and commerce in a city and as a result more growth.