Uh, yeah, they have to cost-share the burden of upsetting the current infrastructure. Say you owned a piece of property adjacent to where all this new building

Uh, yeah, they have to cost-share the burden of upsetting the current infrastructure. Say you owned a piece of property adjacent to where all this new building is going on. Is it your responsibility to chip in? Is it your responsibility to shoulder the cost burden of what is effectively a zoning-related issue? I mean, god, when do you really own the property you're standing on? You didn't even ask for all this development, but now you've got to pay for expanding the infrastructure because a new developer wants to reap financial reward by developing up his land? Yeah. It's not a property freedom issue, it's a cost ecosystem issue. As time goes on and life changes, owning property is going to have fluid costs, and tax assessments on people who come in to develop land is one way to defray those costs from disproportionately hitting people who have lived in an area for a long time. Frankly, those people would never really plan for that kind of thing to happen, so you're avoiding a lot of nasty repercussions by taxing the person upsetting the ecosystem, rather than the members of the ecosystem itself.