The post you are reporting:
Neil, there is a difference between structural regeneration and economic regeneration, and I gave examples of both concerning Dover in my rep to the DfT.
Some forms of structural regeneration require an investment but will not bring a profit. Other forms of economic investment would be financially profitable.
But it's clear to see that DPPT make no distinction between Dover and the District, and your above interpretation of local community is your own. The term, referring to the District, should be communities, using the plural.
Your interpretation of "seed money" is your way of describing a one-off sum of borrowed money, nothing more, nothing less.
Your reference to match funding bears no proof or evidence, nor any example. It is misleading.
Do you have any offers for match funding from anyone to support your claim?
In practice, DPPT are claiming that the whole of Dover District would receive hundreds of millions of pounds, as written in your above post, but this is sheer fantasy! DHB's revised bid offered something along similar lines, although on a smaller scale. And they too offered £1 million a year dividends for the first five years.
I'm afraid to say, Neil, the Port of Dover cannot cater for the sums of money - the hundreds of millions of pounds in local regeneration - which you are claiming. Not even through imaginary match funding.
A charity organisation is one thing, but by believing that DPPT will pass off as a charity and can claim match funding, the DPPT "Eight Directors" would set of a nest of hornets, as any community in Britain could then claim to have the right to set up a communal charity, borrow £50 million and transform it through match-funding and miraculous calculations into hundreds of millions of pounds.
Tada Neil!