[nick demis]

Wouldn't it be great to get FACTS on an issue and be allowed to form my own opinion instead of always trying to determine the political position of the information that is being reported.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs.

I'm trying to understand why the developer "should" be bearing these costs. Aren't the residents the ones that benefit from these services. In every other type of government, the residents pay for these services through taxes.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

I'm trying to understand why the developer "should" be bearing these costs. Aren't the residents the ones that benefit from these services. In every other type of government, the residents pay for these services through taxes.

Let's define "these costs" as the *additional* costs incurred by development of both residences, businesses, and other facilities. These costs could include new roads but they could also include expansion or improvement of existing roads.

New roads: I *believe* much of this in the Villages is paid for by the bond and in exchange, the impact fee in the Villages is low. Outside the Villages the impact fee is higher because there is no bond to pay for any new roads.

Road improvements: Additional traffic could require additional traffic lights, widening of roads, addition of sidewalks and curbing, etc. Villagers don't add too much to that since we primarily use our new roads and so the impact fee on Villagers homes is low. Homes outside the Villages cause a bit more use of the roads so their fee is higher. New businesses, especially those that draw a lot of customers and cars, have the potential to result in the majority of road improvements so their fee is higher.

If I am correct and the impact fees fund new road construction and existing road improvements made necessary by the construction of new homes and new businesses and directly benefiting new homes and new businesses then why should the developer "not* bear these costs (and, of course, pass them along to the owners of the homes and businesses).

Continual maintenance of the roads is funded through taxes but the initial construction of the roads or necessary improvements of the road should be funded by those that created the need.

(that's not to say that the 2019(?) study was correct or that new businesses can actually afford the fees, there is a place for Govt. to discount the impact fees. But let's be honest, the starting point for any compromises should be from the 100% level and not from the 40% level)

[Jokomo]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

I cancelled my subscription to the paper after the first “article” in this series was published. I don’t care if the Developer advertises, but I’m not going to pay him to do it. And it’s professionally dishonest to publish these items as news. I knew this was a Company town when I moved here, but the full realization of what that means is just sinking in.

[Rosebud2020]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

Exactly what do you expect from the Daily Sun???

The public-at-large should be aware (if they aren't already aware) that the ownership of the "rag" was taken back by the developer some time ago. This gives them poetic license to do and say whatever they want, whenever they want.

If the developer's base is not thrown out of office and/or replaced, nothing will ever change. We live in an area where "the-good-old boys" voices prevail and they get what they want when they want it.

If we knew to what extent and how much these things have cost us -- the taxpayers -- we would be horrified.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

I'm trying to understand why the developer "should" be bearing these costs. Aren't the residents the ones that benefit from these services. In every other type of government, the residents pay for these services through taxes.

In most areas of the country that are not set up as CDDs, the developer pays for the roads, sewer, water, utilities etc. That cost is built into the price of the home so no buyer ever knows about the issue of impact fees. Here, it is different and traditionally in TV, the taxpayer has shouldered much of the burden. Either way the taxpayer/homeowner is paying for it. It is a fallacy to think that the "developer" ever eats those fees.

Is it fair for existing homeowners to pay for new homeowners? Yes and no. Everyone benefits from the increased services a thriving economy has brought to this area due to "the developer" Sumter County 30 years ago was the poorest county in Florida, now it is 11th out of 60+. Everyone benefits from the retail opportunities, the restaurant choices, the grocery stores, the employment opportunities.

To those that think this is "the developer's sweetheart impact fee deal", consider this: Who paid the impact fee when YOUR house was new? Or is it just a case of changing the rules after they got their benefit and denying it to future home buyers?

[kens613]

Originally Posted by Advogado

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.

Thay are just trying to camouflage the price of their homes by taking fees such as impact and bond fees separate from the sale price of their new homes.. It makes the sale price of their new homes lower and more salable to compete with resales!! But the true cost is the sale price plus impact and bond fees, which most buyers aren't aware of!! Great sales gimmick but not a honest value..

[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 development in some way or another BUT you also benefit from it by having more employees in the area that will pay taxes, attract more businesses because of the population increase and on and on.

[dewilson58]

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 development in some way or another BUT you also benefit from it by having more employees in the area that will pay taxes, attract more businesses because of the population increase and on and on.

Exactly.
City/County/State leaders have long-term responsibilities and #1 is Growth.


If you are not growing, you are dying.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by kens613

But the true cost is the sale price plus impact and bond fees, which most buyers aren't aware of!! Great sales gimmick but not a honest value..

Sorry you did not do your research.
Most buyers in TV are aware................they are very smart.

[GoPacers]

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????

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by nick demis

Wouldn't it be great to get FACTS on an issue and be allowed to form my own opinion instead of always trying to determine the political position of the information that is being reported.

It would also strain current reality.

People who allow lies and liars dictate their life and opinions are something that simply defies everything I was ever taught, but is now acceptable.

I just recently received a PM from someone I dont know except for posting on here and the question posed to me was "why I have "fetish" for truth and facts"

TRUTH is now a fetish to some.....and seems you can lie, paper, individual, whatever and never have to be held accountable

[Bwolf1]

Originally Posted by Advogado

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.

Very well put and true!

[Bwolf1]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

The very first thing I thought when I saw it. This is an op-ed, not a news story. Journalism is officially dead!

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Bwolf1

The very first thing I thought when I saw it. This is an op-ed, not a news story. Journalism is officially dead!

An op-ed is the OPPOSITE of an editorial dressed-up as news.