Quote:
Originally Posted by JP
Developers always get some kind of deal. It's just the way it is. When a company wants to build a new building and employ people, the first thing the company does is see what city/county/state is going to give them the best tax reductions and cheapest/free land. What is going on here in TV is no different. Just a little different version. You the taxpayer ALWAYS pay for this in some way or another.
|
Yep - consumers always pay. It's always been that way and it always will be that way.
Whether it be in the price of the home, the taxes, etc. It boggles the mind why some people think things should be free or that they cannot comprehend that things cost more today than they did 30 years ago.
If you don't like the price of a home then DON'T buy it. If people stop buying new homes then the developer will stop building new homes. Supply and demand - it's a simple concept.
The other concept people seem unable to grasp - as more infrastructure is built there will be MORE maintenance costs on that infrastructure in the future. Maintenance on infrastructure always falls on taxpayers. To pay for these increased costs you either increase the tax rate or you increase the tax base. If you wonder why the large metro areas are generally high-tax areas it's this reason. The tax base is largely fixed so the only way to pay for the increased maintenance is to raise the tax rate.
Should there be higher impact fees - absolutely. The question is really what is the right balance between impact fees and taxes. As some have pointed out, the impact fees are a one-time expense. The longer term maintenance is the bigger expense that absolutely falls on taxpayers. The real fallout of sweetheart impact fees is the significant increase in demand for maintenance going forward. Economic development is a science - and you oftentimes regulate growth with incentives. Increasing the impact fees will likely slow down growth but that is the question for commissioners to address. How much growth can the county (and community) support longer-term with the projected tax base and "resonable" tax rates????