The figures aren't remotely presented, and if you think they are you went in looking for a narrative. The "mall" in question is in the middle of a suburb. The

The figures aren't remotely presented, and if you think they are you went in looking for a narrative. The "mall" in question is in the middle of a suburb. The "subsidy" of infrastructure that was required regardless seems spurious. Further, both areas "required the city to pay for all the aforementioned services". For that matter, maintaining roads and water/sewage in dense areas is dramatically more expensive than less dense areas. "even now, post dis-investment, the downtown generates $344k tax and the mall $120k tax" The article quotes current, failed mall taxes. After most tenants have moved out and the mall is in disarray. Secondly, saying that a 9 block area of mixed retail/commerce pays more taxes than a single mall seems outrageously laughable. The word "subsidy" almost always appears in articles fomenting nonsense to pander to prejudices. The correlation between it and articles of little actual value is about 1.0.