His review of 25 years of literature on the fiscal impacts of growth revealed that urban growth is far more likely to drain local treasuries than to enhance them, belying the standard promises that growth will increase tax revenues and produce economic prosperity through new businesses and jobs. The high cost of providing the basic facilities and infrastructure required by urban growth almost invariably outstrips the revenues gained and instead increases the burden on the system.

Fodor's research reveals that infrastructure costs of urban development are enormous -- approximately $33,260 for a typical new, three-bedroom single-family house. This estimate does not include infrastructure like streets, sidewalks, and water and sewer lines that the developers fund, and is based on only nine of the 18 main cost categories for public facilities and infrastructure associated with urban growth. Because of cost constraints, only the first nine in the list below were addressed.

K-12 school facilities

Sanitary sewer system

Storm drainage system

Transportation system

Water service facilities

Parkland & recreation facilities

Fire protection facilities

Library facilities

Electric power generation & distribution

Police facilities

Corrections & jail facilities

Ambulance & EMS facilities

Open space

Solid waste disposal facilities

General government facilities

Natural gas distribution system

Telephone system

Cable TV system

Fodor also did not attempt to quantify the environmental and social costs of growth, though he notes that they may have greater impact on the community than physical infrastructure costs. These costs include decreased air and water quality, increased rates of natural resources consumption, lost open space and resource land, lost visual and other amenity values, lost wildlife habitat, increased noise, delays and increased commute time due to traffic congestion, higher costs of living, increased crime, lost sense of community, increased regulation [loss of freedom], and costs to future generations.

The $33,260 infrastructure cost per house is usually paid by all taxpayers through property taxes or general obligation bonds, while the benefits accrue primarily to those living in the new development. Taxpayers are thus subsidizing growth, and in the city's Growth Management Study, growth is what the majority of Eugeneans have said they do not want. Furthermore, says Fodor, this forced subsidy stimulates more growth by artificially lowering the private sector costs of land development.

As taxpayers were never given accurate information about why their tax bill was large and growing larger, the taxpayer revolt that ushered in Measures 5 and 50 was the result. While these measures may have lowered residential taxes slightly, they failed to address the major cause of increased taxes: the forced subsidizing of development. Furthermore, they resulted in cuts in many desired services that support and enhance quality of life: library and recreation services, maintenance of existing roads, schools and sewage plants, and services to the neediest segment of the population.

Citizens now have a choice between living with a steadily declining quality of life and the problems that brings, or finding other means of reinstituting those services -- through more taxes, seeking private donors, or by getting into the fund-raiser business.

Fodor simply insists that citizens need accurate information if they are to make informed decisions about how tax money should be spent. If local growth-related costs are identified, "the use of public resources to stimulate growth can be prioritized against other community needs." He advocates for an equitable funding of growth that can maintain service levels without increasing tax rates, and that developers pay the true impact fees of their projects.