You have to remember that this is city land that Tesla is asking to use, essentially for free. They will improve the land, but at their benefit (paving it). That wouldn't help the city if down the road if Tesla left or if the supercharger was asked to be removed the city wanted that to be a green space, possibly at the vote of residents. The city doesn't generate any direct tax by offering the supercharger there. The gas station across the street might also be upset that THEY have to pay tax while Tesla doesn't. The city sounds open to having a supercharger by suggesting that they could offer the land for sale. The city could be supporters of EVs and still have an issue with just handing over land tax free since it's giving preferential treatment to a non-government entity. In addition, Tesla DOES charge for supercharger use, even if it's claimed it's just to cover the cost of electricity and re-investment in the supercharger network, so now the city is offering a private company free land to use AND to generate income from. It would be interesting to see if Tesla could work with the gas station across the street to locate it there, or if the business owner of the gas station would want to buy the land the city is offering up and then immediately allow Tesla to pave and build a supercharger there. The gas station would be paying property tax on the land, but it might be worth while to them if Tesla owners walk over and buy stuff in a large enough volume.