The election may prove to be one of the most contentious in U.S. history – and with Opportunity Zones on the agenda for both parties, one might reasonably think that the net outcome for the initiative would differ meaningfully depending on the winner.

But what if that's not the case? In fact, I would argue that OZs stand to benefit no matter what as both candidates have made proposals that could be good for the initiative – especially if the candidates' plans are designed and executed in the right ways.

President Trump, for instance, recently signed an executive order directing future federal government offices to be built in OZs; this has the potential, as one senior White House official said, to pour immense federal resources into distressed communities "and also drive down the high cost of locating government offices in expensive business districts." Some critics point out that OZs have varying levels of economic distress, so it's important to direct these federal funds to areas where they can have the most significant impact – and to measure that impact effectively. The White House has also directed the IRS to consider new rules around foreign investors' ability to defer capital gains under the OZ initiative. While promising, some say this won't have much of an impact on the initiative– namely because foreign investors rarely pay taxes, unless, for instance, they sell a U.S. business or piece of real estate. What might provide real value – to the initiative and foreign investors – is if these rules forgave any capital gains taxes on investments kept in OZ funds for 10 years. Now is the right time to create these incentives, as countries look to take advantage of low interest rates in the U.S.