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.