Using that logic, then, we shouldn't ever allow developers to develop nice communities because they tie into the same sewer system used by the masses? As an affordable housing developer myself, I can tell you that the system is built on a give/take relationship.

Yes, the City assumes care for the infrastructure. However, the economic footprint left by the new tax revenue far outweighs the cost of care and maintenance. You could (using some twisted logic) argue that you ONLY wanted rich developments because of the increased buying power adding more profitability to the City.

Obviously this wouldn't work because a city needs a mix of both. But to label deeding of improvements as a subsidy constitutes a misrepresentation of the nature of the relationship between cities and developers.