You'll have to explain to me how new residents pay for retired public employees. Our public employees are either on a state or local pension plan they payed int

You'll have to explain to me how new residents pay for retired public employees. Our public employees are either on a state or local pension plan they payed into, had that money invested, and are now drawing from, or they have a 457 plan. Currently working employees pay a portion of their salary into the plan to keep it going. The city's pension obligations to retired employees are almost nil. I also take issue with your use of the term "shared infrastructure". If you view all infrastructure as shared, then the existing infrastructure is being used "for free" by new residents, its costs having been payed for by previous residents. In your proposal the costs are loaded onto existing residents who payed for both old and new infrastructure, as opposed to new residents who only pay for the new. This would seem to balance out whatever new residents are paying in for "things they never used". EDIT: I should address your point about urban sprawl. I would think that as long as it is cheap to build new, the incentive to infill cities is low. Developers and buyers will prefer new, and that creates a number of negative externalities beyond housing shortages. New construction is obviously necessary, but we need to find ways to align the incentives of developers and communities. I actually think we're off the mark here talking about new residents, since only residents that buy new are saddled with the extra burden. New residents that opt to infill existing neighborhoods do not. Perhaps the better option is to place the burden on the developers, but offer residents other incentives (such as property tax relief on new construction).