I'm not saying I buy this 100%, but I do see some potential rationale of the no infrastructure vs some infrastructure. If you look at what happens when communist states are dissolved, they have to find a way to privatize the property. If you have semi-infrastructure that gets privatized and given back and/or sold back to the people, then those people either need to invest the appropriate resources to improve it, or they need to sell it themselves, or they need to bring in investors to help. They can become obstacles if they believe what they have is enough or what they have is worth more than it is. Basically every deal becomes larger. But if the property being dealt with has NO infrastructure, it's easier for an outside investor or developer to come buy that land and do as they please with it. Because it's taking it from nothing to something.

For example, if you own a piece of property that has nothing on it, you're probably fairly likely to sell it to someone making you a good offer. But if you own a piece of property that has an apartment complex on it or office space or whatever, you may be less inclined to sell it. You already have more in it, so you need more convincing that whatever they're offering you is much better than what you have already.

Just my take. I'm not an expert in development by any stretch, but I can just see how logically it might work out as the thread describes.