More is good -- only sometimes

When local governments carefully analyze the impact of "development" on the county, from a strictly financial point of view, the results are always the same:
Retail covers their incremental costs (to the county) in a few months; Office Parks and Industries in less than a year; and new housing takes 4-7 years to recover the incremental costs to the local governments.  This varies depending upon what contributions the development made, and whether the housing is senior housing or adds to the load on the school system.

Retail also adds jobs (but relatively low-paying ones) and sales tax revenue.  Business and Industry adds jobs (much higher paying ones), and new housing sometimes adds jobs (temporarily), but the larger developer tend to import the workers anyway.

Barring very unusual circumstances, doing anything to subsidize large housing developments is a bad investment for the county.  They hurt the county's short term cash flow and help raise the tax rate.  An attempt should be made to establish the actual costs for each new development, and then ask for contributions sufficient to make it a cash-neutral proposition for the county.  If the price is too high, we won't get the housing development, but who cares?  We're growing too fast, anyway.  However, retail, business and industry pay for themselves quickly, and add local jobs and tax revenue.

Our local homebuilders employ local people and we should try to encourage them.  Now that the various utility connection fees are so high, we should permit them to be paid off over 10 years, effectively adding them as a tax-like fee to the house.  This is routinely done in other states.  This would ease the cash flow for the smaller builder and homeowner who suddenly needs a sewer connection, and have no effect on the larger, who have access to low-cost borrowing the smaller builders don't.  These fees are equivalent to tax liens, and can be borrowed against, if the county should need the cash suddenly.