Government spending on restoration of old buildings in cities should be stopped. Instead they should spend the money for housing and road development. Do you agree or disagree?

Rather than choosing to spend tax-paying money for the development of the nation's infrastructure, many governments from around the country spend on historical buildings in cities.

Although

the decision might seem unfair, the sake of its city resident's safety,

as well as

the tourist factor are all the reasons why I believe it should be considered

as

Change preposition

apply

show examples

the right decision

instead

of the previous criticism

First,

it is inevitable that any kind of building from any country can undergo corrosion.

As a result

, without proper maintenance, part of a building can fall apart which endangers everyone near it.

For example

, in Vietnam, there was a France colonized era cathedral located in Ho Chi Minh City which had been damaged over time, if the government hadn't decided to hire an expert who could help to repair the church, given that the surrounding area was a highly populated area, many residents' life would have been at risk.

Hence

it is vital for the maintenance process to ensure the safety of the surrounding area

Additionally

, for the most part, historical remains are one of the most important tourist attractions. Since the purpose of tourism is immersing the visited country history's and visiting old buildings is one in many ways.

Subsequently

, keeping its beauty over time is not a wrongdoing.

For instance

, when first mentioning Japan, they would think of its old castle

as well as

its historical palace. In conclusion, even though there are growing demand for better infrastructure in cities, the restoration of old remains may seem unfair,

however

,

this

decision

also

helps its residents in many ways. Not only for safety purposes but

also

to nurture cities’ tourism as well.