The developer subsidy matters ....

It is clear that the City of Norman is, and hopes to continue, subsidizing water capacity for new development (12/12 post). This is a big deal for a pair of (interrelated) reasons: fairness and market distortion. I'll focus on the fairness issue here and handle the market distortion issue in a later post.

At its most basic, fairness requires that a government either treat citizens equally or explicitly justify any asymmetric treatment.* Norman's new water capacity policy fails this fundamental test: the City's water-capacity policy is to subsidize one part of the community; the City has consistently denied that it is doing so, much less provided a rationale.

Having made this initial point, I will not try to canvass all of the possible arguments someone might make to justify special treatment for new development. It is worth noting, however, a couple of points on why such arguments are difficult to make.

1) Plausible candidates for justifying differential treatment (e.g., providing aid to the needy) respect the basic idea of equal treatment because they try to support equal dignity and respect for all.** These sorts of justifications support the advantaged lifting up the downtrodden, however, not subsidies for the already well-to-do. Differential treatment can't be justified by aristocratic or (especially) plutocratic principles. "I deserve more because I am better" is directly opposed to the basic idea of equal treatment before the law (especially where better = richer).

2) The fact that developers do good for the community does not justify subsidies. Developers are in business and so work on an exchange basis: they do what they do - including providing community benefits - only so far as they see the money they are paid as sufficient. If a government wants more, of course, it can contract for more on a fee-for-service basis. Having different sets of rules for different groups is not necessary, then, to achieve the goods new development has to offer. In fact, subsidies and other special deals can distort the market, reducing or even eliminating any net benefit of development. More on this last point later.

_________

* Fairness is a contested notion, at least around the edges. It is also a notion that is likely to lead a philosopher astray into irrelevant details, so I will try to keep it simple. I am trying to work here from common ground rather than controversial assumptions.

** Mere consistent application of a set of rules may not respect equality in this way.  Consider the famous Anatole France quote: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."