I agree with all of this, plus I don't like eating dirt.
I'm not saying a tacky track is better then a dry/slick track. Depending on how prepared both will give you absolute great racing when prepared right. A tacky track doesn't make cars faster, it slows them down. And creates great racing. Unless it's only a lane wide. Tracks like OCFS for the last few years were dry and fast, not tacky, and made for single lane racing. This is also due to the size of the track also.
Slower racing at least in the modifieds seems to always bring better racing whether your track is tacky or slick. A tacky track prepared right will give you great racing top to bottom, but so will a slick track if it's top to bottom. A tacky track also doesn't cause more damage, I think what you guys are calling "tacky" you mean as "heavy". A heavy track can tear up a car, be wavy, or pull up clumps that are notorious for pulling off belly pans.
Great example in the 80s and 90s, Rolling Wheels was an awesome tacky track and would give you great racing. 2 to 3 wide for most of the race and has had some great endings like Jumpin Jacks pass through the infield of 3 & 4 on Danny Johnson after 99 of laps of amazing racing. The track would get to the point where they tires were squeelling going into the corners it would have so much bite. That's my best example of a good tacky track racing.
But obviously today making a track dry and slick is a cheaper way to go, but if you can do that top to bottom and consistent weekly drivers will still be happy and you'll still get great racing. I really don't think one type of track makes a better driver. I seem to see the same great drivers excel on either, and the same drivers struggle on either. It all depends on whether you like a few mud pellets landing on your hot dog or covered in dust.
Now there's two good posts here. Agreed!!!