I'm pretty amazed too. Your post made an assessment of how all government systems should be paid for, and to support this you cited an example where others pay unfairly for rural residents' services. I merely looked at the general principle that you were proposing (that only users of public services should pay for those services) and cited an example where people's financial means prevent them from paying "their fair share" of the cost of the service, but (in my humble opinion) still deserve to enjoy the benefits of the infrastructure in question, in this case, roads. I don't see this as twisting your argument at all, just raising an example where your system fails to achieve optimal results. Unless, that is, you think that only rural users should follow this pay-for-your-own-services principle, which you did not indicate in your post--on the contrary, you seemed to be advocating the principle everywhere, without excepting poor urban areas.
In any case, if you agree that poor inner city folk need to be subsidized because they don't have the means to pay, and that this is an OK use of govt. money, then we have nothing to argue about anyway. Incidentally, I also think it's unfair that we're subsidizing rural development, and that it should stop.
You want to build a house in Nowhere, Virginia: You pay the installation costs. There should not be any subsidization for these services by non-users. Not one single dime.
Would that also follow for maintenance costs? In that case should poor people, and thus poor neighborhoods, get lower quality roads than rich people? Naturally, this is already happening to some extent--bad neighborhoods often have unclean roads riddled with potholes, but in your "ideal" scenario I can only imagine infrastructure being yet more unevenly distributed. This would be a great way to create something approximating a third world country, right here in America!
"You can't make a program without broken egos."