With Congress’ passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, much discussion focused on a particular aspect of the law — the establishment of “Opportunity Zones” and the significant incentives provided for investing capital into those communities. While many viewed the law as just the latest tool promoting gentrification, others lauded the law as an innovative approach to attract capital to low-income communities.

Baltimore seemed to emerge as an early leader on the legislation, being home to one of the first Opportunity Zone-funded projects in Yard 56 and having been a leader in the appointment of an opportunity czar, Ben Seigel, who now works in Comptroller Brooke Lierman’s office. In the early years after the passage of the law, Seigel and I were frequent speakers on panels along the East Coast regarding the potential of the law to revitalize communities like Baltimore, which had the potential benefit of having 42 census tracts designated as Opportunity Zones.

Recognizing both the potential and the limitations of the law, I proposed legislation to democratize the law by providing a tax benefit at the state level to incentivize investors who did not have the requisite capital gains to benefit from the federal legislation but had disposable income that could have been used to invest in these blighted and often overlooked communities.

Unfortunately, because of the melee of various actors attempting to influence the law in ways that benefited their respective interests, a Maryland Opportunity Zone law emerged that essentially kept power in the hands of government agencies and incentivized a small subset of employers that were located in Opportunity Zones. Specifically, the Maryland law largely incentivized hiring in Opportunity Zones while seemingly ignoring the reality that these neighborhoods first needed ground-up investment. That need could have been addressed by adopting tax incentives for individual small investors who put their money toward Opportunity Zone projects.

It is important to note that other jurisdictions, to much success, adopted laws that were similar to the law that I proposed. Ohio, for instance, provides an additional 10% tax credit for taxpayers’ investments in properties located in Opportunity Zones. As a result, despite Baltimore’s seeming head start on the Opportunity Zone law, that potential largely fizzled under the pressure of gentrification fears and monied interests and failed to capture the true potential of the legislation.

And yet Baltimore may have a second bite at the proverbial apple. With the reelection of Donald Trump, many have already started to influence the extension of the law. With Maryland confronting the challenges of addressing Baltimore’s vacancy issues while confronting a significant budgetary deficit, the private capital that could be provided from Opportunity Zone investors may be just what the city needs. Rather than lamenting the legislation’s negative potential, Baltimore should lean into the legislation and shape its own incentives in a manner that will democratize the law’s benefits while attracting private capital to address issues that the government can’t tackle because of the state’s budgetary challenges.

While it is true that the initial tranche of Opportunity Zone funds poured into already financially attractive projects, with time we have seen funds flowing to secondary opportunities. Arctaris Impact recently announced its investment in an Opportunity Zone project transforming a hotel into affordable housing in Baltimore City. The city and the state need more investments of this sort, but to attract capital, they should go back to the drawing board and regain some of the momentum of the early days of the federal legislation. If now is to be Baltimore’s time, it must utilize all tools at its disposal — Opportunity Zones presents one such powerful tool to attract what Baltimore needs now more than ever — private capital.

Venroy July is an attorney based in Baltimore.