How does excessive consumption in an area decrease tax revenue? Source: p 156, Urban Geography (2009; 3rd ed) by Michael Pacione


  The main ideological battle is between pro-growth
  and anti-growth factions. The pro-growth ideology
  proclaims that more development results in increased
  population, greater aggregate sales, more local tax
  revenues and more local jobs, owing to increased local
  spending. Benefits therefore flow to those who need
  employment and those in favour of lower taxes. 
  The
  anti-growth ideology emphasises the other side of the
  coin: development brings more people to an area than
  local institutions can service, thus any $\color{darkred} { \text { downward trend
in taxation  }   }$  is overcome in the later stages of growth
  by the need for $\color{green} { \text { greater fiscal expenditure  }   }$.


1. How does excessive consumption in local institutions cause a $\color{darkred} { \text { downward trend
in taxation  }   }$? Excessive consumption ought to be boost tax revenue? 

2. The last sentence seems to contradict the  anti-growth ideology. Please clarify? I am guessing that the anti-growth ideologues want to avoid $\color{green} { \text { greater fiscal expenditure  }   }$; so why do they reject a growth (or overgrowth) in consumption?
Actually the text does not state that consumption leads to a downward trend in taxation, but actually the other way around--

According to the text, anti-growth ideology says that low taxes do indeed lead to development, mainly focusing on population increase, but that this population growth will strain local institutions, meaning public services like emergency response, sewage services, etc.

Greater fiscal expenditure would be required to expand these services to accommodate the increased population.

During its explanation of the anti-growth ideology the article is not referencing increasing consumption of private goods, such as at local businesses, but rather of public goods as explained above.