I agree completely. I would absolutely consider myself a "free market ideologue", but my definition of that seems to be a far cry from the author's. From the c

I agree completely. I would absolutely consider myself a "free market ideologue", but my definition of that seems to be a far cry from the author's. From the city's perspective, they have to at least cover their expenses. Infrastructure may be an acceptable place for them to have a net loss as long as it's made up somewhere else in the budget, but municipal infrastructure investment should not viewed as a means of maintaining solvency in and of itself. Considered in the author's perspective, a municipality differs from a for-profit company only in that it also has the responsibility to provide services that are not otherwise profitable; in short, they coerce their residence to pay for things - by force if necessary. If it were profitable to run a $7m (or $13m, as it turned out) infrastructure project to support a proposed airport business park, then why would the government need to do it? Why wouldn't the developer of the business park do it?