Earlier, I
argued against giving targeted tax breaks to developers. Reader Steve Benson raised two counter-arguments.
First, development can sometimes result in added tax revenues greater than the cost of the city services consumed by that development, thus reducing the real tax burden on other taxpayers.
Second, if cities are prohibited from offering targeted tax breaks, some development projects in the category above won't proceed.
Is Steve correct? And if so, should I change my mind about the Palisades development in particular, and targeted tax breaks in general?