Infrastructure Discussion

Note: I brought this discussion, about who should pay for new infrastructure, to the front page so that I could use color to provide answers to this anonymous post. Color formating is not available in the response section.

You sure can say a lot about nothing. I specifically asked for examples of a developer not paying for that infrastructure.

Not only did I supply specific examples, you then addressed them. Do you remember the discussion about the fire stations?

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.

Perhaps I am mistaken but I was under the impression that only the most colossal developments triggered the need for a traffic impact studies also impact studies should be done earlier in the process of most large developments than at the time of the site plan for example if there are zoning changes requested the traffic studies should be supplied. Actually the requirements recently recommended by the staff and rejected by city council were way too lax. It is a lack of controls that have resulted in the conditions that exist at places Longmire and Rock Prairie. This is a very specific example of a lack of development controls causing problems in our community.

There's more...
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?

Well, thank you for making my point. Indeed developers are doing all that is required of them. That is exactly the point. We need to fix those requirements so that the people who have already paid for the infrastructure in their part of town are not asked to foot the bill for road expansions that serve these new developments.

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.

No, I am not anti-growth. In fact, I have confidence that College Station will grow even if we do not subsidize new development. We have many great assets that are being diminished by bad development and developers who want to control our city government so that they can exact unfair taxes on our citizens to help pay for their private developments. This is anti-community.

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.

Actually, I did not say that it is not the city’s responsibility to provide fire and police protection. What I said was that it should not be the responsibility of those of us who have already paid for the infrastructure that serves our part of town to now pay for the infrastructure that is going to serve new development. Once that infrastructure is in place, then, indeed, we all share equally the burden of servicing the city. That is a different cost than putting the fire station in.

In fact it would make more sense to turn your argument around. We should impose extra impact fees on new development because our earlier investments made their new developments possible. Castle Gate would not exist if College Hills and College Place were not in place first. Like with other investments, these people deserve a return on their investment. Additionally, that extra impact fee is justified because the new developments make the city less dense thus driving up the cost of services. But actually no one is asking for these easily justified fees from developers. We simply want them to pay for the infrastructure that will serve their new developments.

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?

There is no doubt, infill development presents more challenges than sprawl into raw land. This is exactly why we need to make new development at least pay for itself and probably the added cost that these developments will impose on all of us through increased cost of services. When other development has to pay its fair share infill becomes more likely. One of the reasons why we have so many problems with NIMBY opposition is because these people have not been confronted with infill development before. The other reason is that developers, used to putting up whatever they feel like, resist conforming to the community standards required for infill. But I do not prescieve a problem with NIMBYs. What you preceive as a problem comes from NIMCs - Not In My Community. Keep your ugly development out. We want the well thought out beautiful development that we deserve.

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.

Who do you suppose paid for Brison and Thomas Parks. These parks were a part of the first developments in town.


Again, please show specific examples of where "tax payers are subsidizing the profits of developers".

I believe that I have done that. You have already agreed, for example, that you think that it is our responsibility to pay to build the fire stations that will serve new subdivisions. Those fire stations would not need to be built if those new subdivisions were not put in and my home would still be served without the new fire station. So in what sense is this not a subsidy for the developers of those new subdivisions?