78. In this editorial the author argues that improvements to existing city services as ' a' p; x$ U+ g6 \- L2 k
well as new services should be paid for by developers rather than by taxpayers. In # } Z: B6 n+ j9 W+ `9 ~* e
support of this opinion the author points out that developers can make large profits from * P9 L2 ?6 F# u7 U! u7 R
building projects and that these projects increase the demand for city services and raise ( ]' D8 w4 I; ]
the city's expenses, I disagree with the author's opinion for two reasons.: i# y( z$ {6 J g' U
First, the fact that developers stand to make profits from their projects is not a
5 ~1 {1 A8 X; zgood reason to require them to pay more than their fair share of the costs of services. In 7 L7 i- Q, s0 N/ q) w6 E9 `
fact, to require them to do this in order to win approval of their projects is tantamount to ( n' u/ z( l$ H" }8 l% u M
robbery. City officials would find it difficult to justify a policy that endorsed this ; x3 o7 M- b8 ~% @1 N' x' l- S3 Y
practice. Moreover, the adoption of such a practice would discourage the development , B, r1 C6 Y$ Y) p) E1 x# a/ K
of new buildings in the city.0 S% F5 F/ G) t5 W: T" w2 ]+ q
Second, the increase in demand for city services as well as the increase in the
$ q# s3 {& E; B5 Tcity's expenses will be most likely offset by the tax revenues these projects generate. + ` G" g1 q; a8 L9 a8 ^- l: l' m
Consequently, unless the author can demonstrate that the city will incur expenses that $ j, q0 M: R; I1 o# r D
are not covered by the increased revenues from these projects, the author's concern " H0 O6 s; `3 _
about these issues is unfounded.
" ~9 O- S- @5 E) A! {, O5 D In conclusion. I find the author's reasoning on this issue unconvincing. To
2 J4 j9 U: |8 e3 i) A, jstrengthen the argument the author would have to show that the city would be harmed
) [% t0 b' u4 D4 A5 Y& _ cfinancially by approving new building projects. |