Report a Comment

The people not paying are supporting by not pressuring their representatives to oppose it. For example, in Loudoun's case, the Silver Line needs support from 5 of 9 supervisors even though the line will only exist in 1 or 2 supervisors districts. Similarly, the Purple Line needs the support of the majority of the state/locality officials even though it will only exist in a minority of the area.

Infrastructure benefits everyone.

Yes, but direct monetary gains accrue only to the people owning land close to the infrastructure. Why should those people get all the monetary gains when the costs are shared by everyone? Shouldn't the gains also be shared? Otherwise, you perpetuate the corrupt cycle of developers contributing funds to politicians who turn around and spend public money for the primary benefit of the developers.

That's why infrastructure should be paid for by everyone. If not, you might as well privatize infrastructure. Which doesn't work.

What doesn't always work is trying to get everyone to pay for the infrastructure equally. That's why the Silver Line is happening but not the Purple Line (for the foreseeable future). A portion should be paid for by everyone (because yes, everyone receives some benefit) but a disproportion should be paid by the people getting a windfall gain.

by Falls Church on Jun 22, 2012 10:55 am • link • report