With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". One option was to increase taxes on all residents to raise the funds needed for road improvements. Montgomery County Code sec. 52—48(c)(2). The County relies, in part, on the fact that improvements would not be necessary if the new developments were not to be built. Thus, they contend the decision to impose an impact tax as opposed to raising taxes on all property owners is a rational one and the classification legitimate according to the County’s position. This is especially true, according to the County’s position, in light of the fact that the existing development pays for a portion of the road improvements and expansion through already existing tax schemes. See Sanitary Comm’n v. Noel, 155 Md. 427, 434, 142 A. 634, appeal dismissed, 278 U.S. 573, 49 S.Ct. 94, 73 L.Ed. 513 (1928) (<HOLDING>). Appellees argue that if the circumstances

A: holding that an eic was neither a social security benefit nor a local public assistance benefit
B: holding that the classification made by  252242 was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary
C: holding that a plantshutdown benefit is not an optional form of benefit
D: holding higher taxes on those residents that receive a greater benefit was not an arbitrary classification
D.