When considering the expenditure, a cost benefit analysis is vital. Can/will the infrastructure be paid for and maintained from the taxes collected there for example?
Should proper local government be instituted where these areas can keep the taxes they raise for infrastructure or projects they desire?
It's well and good to sit back and say the government should provide these things, but the unseen part of the equation is the additional debt that is required to "provide" the roads.
Sure the towns people see a road today that was provided for "free", but future generations get to pay additional additional taxes to service the debt. Actually to service the government as the debt never seems to be paid off.
Hardly an optimal arrangement.
On the other hand, if government were to raise taxes to the level required to fund itself there would be a revolt. People are angry enough over the implementation of VAT at 7.5%. Imagine higher taxes.
Another option includes getting developers pay for the infrastructure, but of course many of these remote areas don't stand a chance of being developed. That may change in the future of course, but for now there's not much hope of this.
It's about time voters stopped believing that the words in the PLP's Charter for Governance or the FNM's Manifesto are deeds. Sure they read very nicely and sell dreams people can believe in. It's just the track record leaves a lot to be desired after 40 years of independence.
But the political class providing the "free stuff" get the praise today while the can is kicked down the proverbial road for future generations.
A pretty neat ploy wouldn't you say?
