Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
^^ Acreage assessments cover about 50% of the total "off-site" infrastructure costs to support new growth. This was a well established fact in the Standard Development Agreement.
|
For now. It will change again. But, why is this fair? Off-site infrastructure is normally oversized and installed with consideration for future. What is the right ratio of cost-sharing? Why not 20-80 or 35-65? This goes to the argument of who benefits from the growth? Yeah, we can keep saying "those greedy #######s" get all the benefits, but that's quite shallow, don't you think?