The recent proposal in Biddeford to charge a service fee to some non-profit organizations on income they raise from residential rentals is one of those rare suggestions that sounds initially reasonable but, after some thought, flat out ridiculous.

Saco is the only city in the state that has been charging this fee since it became legal to do so in 1989 and some Biddeford leaders believe it could be a good way to make up revenue in this era of budget cutbacks.

To the fed-up taxpayer side of one’s brain, the fee makes sense. Finance Director Curtis Koehler made a good point that these non-profit, tax-exempt rental units use police, fire and rescue services just the same as the rest of us taxpaying citizens do. It doesn’t seem right that they should be getting away scot-free when every other home and business has to pay in for these services. In fact, due to the nature of some of these ”“ housing for the elderly or transient populations ”“ aren’t they more likely to need police and rescue services?

But that’s where the compassionate, bigger-picture side steps in and says, wait a minute, many of these organizations are providing housing for our most needy population and if they didn’t, we’d be paying for it through our taxes with some sort of government program.

Dean Wolfahrt, executive director of McArthur Home for Aged People Association in Biddeford, had it right when he told the Policy Committee that providing affordable, subsidized housing to seniors is much more of a contribution to the common good than a tax that would be capped at 2 percent of the gross annual income derived from rental units.

Non-profit organizations such as the McArthur Home and The Maine Way, which provides housing for the homeless and at-risk, are rewarded for their public service with a tax-exempt status for a reason. It should logically follow that whatever proceeds are made from their residential units should go back into the organization to help others.

The proposed service fee would just end up raising the rent for the 80 seniors who live in the McArthur Home apartments, according to Wolfahrt ”“ and that won’t lead to any good for anyone as those residents spend less and require more aid.

The estimated $20-25,000 that the city would raise from this fee isn’t worth the burden it would place on already fragile non-profits helping our most fragile populations. The city should be supporting their efforts, not making them more difficult. Everyone is looking to make or save a buck in these times, but asking for money from non-profits is not the answer.

The final straw that tips the scales in opposition of this proposal is its exclusions. If the fee were uniform for all non-profit organizations, it might be arguable, but the exemption for religious and student dormitories makes the fee discriminatory and preposterous.

There can be no logical argument made to support the idea that a residential building owned by a faith community or an educational institution should receive special treatment over a building affiliated with a group that helps the homeless or aged.