In Bold Corp. v. County of Lancaster, 569 Pa. 107, 801 A.2d 469 (2002) the Court, in explaining that common pleas had properly considered the impact of the entire convention center project, convention facility and host hotel in determining whether the benefits and burdens were disproportionate, quoted from common pleas' opinion: The Court is satisfied that the connection between the convention center and the adjoining hotel is so quid pro quo that each must be considered in the benefit/burden analysis. . . . In other words, the convention center will not be built without the hotel, and vice-versa. If the hotel were to take any and all benefit from the convention center leaving nothing for the other Lancaster County hoteliers, that would appear to be funding of competition in that a benefit would be created for one, through a tax on all. To the extent that there are room nights put back into the market above and beyond this absorption of the convention center business, that is merely capitalism at work. Even though the hotel will not come without the convention center, the hotel is not to be funded with public monies. Thus, the plaintiffs are not funding the hotel that will adjoin the proposed convention center. The added competition to the market as a whole is not a concern of the Court, and neither is it relevant to this issue, as the addition of rooms to the market is no different than if any private hotel were to be built in downtown Lancaster. The only relevant burden this hotel will have is the extent to which it takes away the benefits of the convention center from the other Lancaster county hotels. Id. at 118, 801 A.2d at 475 (quoting common pleas op. at 11).