Who should pay for the infrastructure costs of new development and by what means?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Information, perspective and discussion on quality of life in the Brazos Valley
5 comments:
Maybe the people in Houston should pay for it. How about we get the French to pay for it. Certainly, you would not expect those who incur the cost to pay for it. Those in Houston, France or the already developed parts of College Station should not be asked to pay for new development. It is interesting that these guys who do not want the city to subsidize the arts, which benefit everyone in town, are just fine with us subsidizing their developments. "Oh!" they cry, "developers pay some of their costs." As if this is justification for the parts that they do not pay for. Amazingly they spin this subsidy as some how being a means of lowering our taxes. So we are going to lower our taxes by paying for their infrastructure?
Specifically what do developers not pay for, Hugh? I keep hearing this over and over yet have not seen any proof, other than more rhetoric of tax payers subsidizing development.
Where's the beef?
Well to start with they are not paying for impact studies. Nor are they paying for the impacts. We have $100 million in proposed road construction. This is not for the existing residence of College station. We did not need these road until the new developements went in. Specifically developers should pay for this added infrastructure. While they pay for some of the costs that are incurred directly in their subdivisions they are not paying for the rest of the infrastructure necessary to service these developments. The fire station necessary to service me and my neighbors has long since been built. Why should I pay for fire stations in these new areas? They did not help pay for the fire station in my area. These are costs associated with new development that the developers should be paying. By applying a graduated impact fee we can reward in fill development where services are already in place. Infill development makes our service areas more compact and cost effective. Not only are we subsidizing sprawl but sprawl is also causing our cost of ongoing services to go up. It is not just rhetoric; tax payers ARE subsidizing the profits of developers.
You sure can say a lot about nothing. I specifically asked for examples of a developer not paying for that infrastructure.
When a developer comes in with a site plan, a traffic impact study is done to demonstrate how traffic flows are changed in that area. To say they don’t pay for impact studies is wrong.
Developers are required to put the infrastructure in that serves their development – that includes roads, water lines, sewer lines, electrical, park lands, drainage structures, etc.– everything. To say they are not paying for the “rest of the infrastructure necessary to service these developments” is not only wrong but seems intentionally misleading. I’ll ask again – specifically what infrastructure has a developer not built that was required of him to service his development?
The fire station argument is ridiculous as well. If you use the argument that you have a fire station and other College Station residents down the road are on their own then you are indeed showing yourself as an anti-growth guy. How can you honestly say that it is not the city’s responsibility to serve with fire and police protection its citizens, even if they don’t live in your neighborhood? It is an issue of defining what core services the city provides its citizens, all of its citizens.
Infill is a great idea and would make the service areas more compact and cost effective. The problem, as you are well aware of, are the NIMBY’s of the world. As soon as anyone attempts an infill project, the city council chambers are full of Southside, Munson or Woodcreek residents trying to kill the project. Why would anyone want to fight this battle?
Speaking of development paying for itself, I’m assuming your house was built before the 70’s, about which time the first parkland dedication came into effect. If that is the case, then you and your neighbors have enjoyed the parks and park systems that other developments have had to pay for with parkland dedication fees. You enjoyed a lower cost for your house and lot due to the fact of not having these additional costs added on the overall price of your home.
Again, please show specific examples of where "tax payers are subsidizing the profits of developers".
Developers should (and do) pay for all of their on-site infrustructure.
They should also pay the costs for the increased demand on existing and off site infrustructure caused by their development. They do not pay enough for that in College Station at this time. Impact fees are a good way of doing this.
In addition, permit, platting and development fees should be increased enough to offset the actual costs of plans review and inspections. Right now the taxpayers are heavily subsidizing these costs.
We should also take another stab at the growth management regulations. The City Council all talk about how bad sprawl is but they refuse to take the actions to discourage sprawl and then take other actions to facilitate it. Growth in our community is a given. We must do a better job of managing it.
Post a Comment