78.        In this editorial the author argues that improvements to existing city services as
well as new services should be paid for by developers rather than by taxpayers. In
support of this opinion the author points out that developers can make large profits from
building projects and that these projects increase the demand for city services and raise
the city's expenses, I disagree with the author's opinion for two reasons.
      First, the fact that developers stand to make profits from their projects is not a
good reason to require them to pay more than their fair share of the costs of services. In
fact, to require them to do this in order to win approval of their projects is tantamount to
robbery. City officials would find it difficult to justify a policy that endorsed this
practice. Moreover, the adoption of such a practice would discourage the development
of new buildings in the city.
      Second, the increase in demand for city services as well as the increase in the
city's expenses will be most likely offset by the tax revenues these projects generate.
Consequently, unless the author can demonstrate that the city will incur expenses that
are not covered by the increased revenues from these projects, the author's concern
about these issues is unfounded.
      In conclusion. I find the author's reasoning on this issue unconvincing. To
strengthen the argument the author would have to show that the city would be harmed
financially by approving new building projects.