When developers take up infrastructure costs, the existing taxpayers do not carry this financial burden. The new development directly benefiting the developer, it is appropriate to expect that the costs of making a property viable be borne by those who will benefit from it for instance a developer. In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), the Supreme Court of United States opined that developers can be held responsible for public expenses arising out of their projects if there is nexus between the rule and development impact. Developers may realize they must pay for infrastructure and become more discerning about where they build and how, selecting areas with pre-existing efficient infrastructure or with room for expansion. This would help in reducing urban sprawl thereby promoting sustainable practices in development. In Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), The Supreme court upheld the constitutionality of requiring a property owner to dedicate part of their property to public use (in this case for flood control and traffic improvements) as a condition for receiving a permit for redevelopment. One can deduct from this case that it may be legally permissible to impose infrastructure costs on developers if they are proportionate to the impact of their development. In general, municipalities should require developers to pay for infrastructure so that expenses incurred in relation to the development are borne by those who stand to gain from it, thus leading to just and responsible growth.

What questions would you ask about this post?