Quote:
Originally Posted by Pmarlow
My point is either way you are going to pay and I believe we would be better off if businesses were not taxed for the privilege to provide goods and services to us . As another poster said these businesses will also add a markup to the tax meaning it will ultimately cost us even more than we would have to pay ourselves.
|
You can keep calling it a tax but it doesn't make it so.
Businesses coming into an area have to pay for the pipes that carry their water, the wires that carry their electricity, the asphalt that covers their parking lots, and the shingles on their roof. All of these are costs for adding a building and a business in that location. Which of these should also be considered a "tax" and funded by the homeowners?
The markup would be paid by those who use the business; the property tax increase is paid by all even if they never go into the business. Why is it better for the Govt to take the money out of your pocket rather than the business taking the money? And that only applies to businesses - why should the Govt to take money out of *your* pocket to pay for the impact of the new neighborhood rather than taking it from the purchasers?
There is a balance to be had with these fees. There is an amount that new development (business and homes) should be charged but there is also a discount to be given to encourage the new development. The entire cost should not be put on the shoulders of the existing homeowners but perhaps the entire cost should not be put on the new development either.
Currently, the developers are paying only 40% of the cost and the existing homeowners are paying 60% of the cost. Is that a fair number to charge homeowners in order to be competitive and attract new business? Is a 30% discount more appropriate? I don't know the answer, that's why I/we hire/elect Commissioners to look into the situation and determine where the balance point is. The first step in that is reviewing impact fees and making recommendations.