First, it seems appropriate to place that burden on a future generation because any benefit from rail lives in the future. Borrowing for infrastructure projects at this historical moment is affordable.

Second, my arguments are not circular. Rail costs were willfully and admittedly underestimated by proponents who knew that voters would not consent to the true costs. If cost overruns are inevitable as you say, that's a reason to include those overruns in your projections, but the politicians responsible for rail trumpeted the lowest estimates. That the city cannot afford to build the full line at or near cost due to their own incompetence ought not be rewarded with a perpetual font of money.

Third, I was careful to phrase my argument as the potential to benefit. Obviously, direct benefits from government goods are not universal. What potential to benefit from the rail do residents of Hawaii Kai have?