Quote:
Originally Posted by dewilson58
The OS article is wrong.
The numbers presented assume all of the sixty thousand planned homes.
Too late, thousands have already been built, thousands have been platted.
|
I would argue that the numbers are too low. They ignore both potential impact-fee revenues from the Developer's commercial construction and impact-fees on infrastructure in addition to roads.
But when you quibble about the numbers, which are illustrative only, you overlook the substance of the article, which is the smell that underlies the proposed legislation and Hage's ties to the Developer. The article is definitely not, as you put it, "WRONG", and to so characterize it is silly.
BTW, I am curious; do you or do you not favor increasing the Developer's sweetheart impact fee and correspondingly rolling back our 25% property-tax hike? You have commented countless times (generally with some nitpicking comment like your one here) on this subject. However, unless i missed it, you have never set clearly forth your position on the real issue.