won't be offered to new residents. That sounds like it would provide an unfair windfall benefit to existing residents, but if one simply considers that to be a part of the subsidy, it actually seems like it's the economically efficient thing to do. Comments I think the paper is brilliant, mostly because it confirms my own experiences and biases! Having watched the development process in action, or inaction, a number of times, resident's opposing development consistently cite utility and desirability costs that they fear would be imposed on them, such as traffic, noise, litter, parking, blocked view sheds, etc. Sometimes these fears are more legitimate than others, but they're presence is pretty consistent. Just doing a better job of aligning the revenure incidence and expenditure incedence for new residents could go along way to improving efficiency. For example, most city gov'ts are capable of doing the basic calculations of tax revenue expected from new development and the expected cost of services that will be demanded by the new development. When the tax revenues for the city are expected to exceed expenditures by a significant amount, usually in commercial development, local officials are able to overcome neighborhood opposition, sometimes by sharing the windfall with the neighborhood in the form of new amenities like a park. When expenditures are expected to exceed revenue, it's a different story. In Mass, for example the average single family house pays $3,000 per year in property taxes (multi-families are lower per dwelling unit), while the average