That would be tricky. I think fairness depends on the value for money - it's possible that they don't need as many services that are being provided with. It's also possible they could provide for themselves cheaper - perhaps with a few lifestyle changes. In anycase it would be up to them to decide what to do. I understand that it's not a politically viable solution but I wanted to add to the list of options the idea that perhaps there is no need to force them to buy government services or force other taxpayers to bail them out.

It also sounds like the federal government is spending money to support the area - instead of spending taxpayers money on growth (churn) perhaps a rebate on their federal tax as well.