Thanks. This is exactly what I was aiming for. As I read the OP's comment, I was trying to find a way to tackle it but it just seems like a moot point getting through to someone like that.
The local community could have spent the increase in tax revenue on providing social services. I understand you oppose the deal not out of some economic principal but from a moral principle. But even the moral principle is wrong. Taxation has been used to incentivize behavior since the inception of taxation.
Turning away funds that could benefit the needy, out of a principle to help the needy? That's a head scratcher.