Reason #1 why property taxes go up

[vicupstate]

For every $1 paid in residential taxes, the county spends about $1.67 on services, according to Bailey. But each dollar brought in from business and industry results in just 29 cents spent on county services.

That means a 50-acre tract with 94 homes will cost the county about $80,000. But a 50-acre tract with 10 businesses would result in a surplus of more than $327,000 to the county, Bailey said.

^^ This is from an article in The State regarding growth in the West Wateree section of Kershaw County. See link below. This also explains why many cities do not agressive seek to annex residential areas. This was not news to me, but I thought it might be to others. Needless to say, that .67 cent shortfall is paid by the existing residents.

West Wateree prepares for rapid growth

[waccamatt]

With all due respect, Vic. That shortfall is paid for by businesses.

[Spartan]

With all due respect, Vic. That shortfall is paid for by businesses.

Exactly. Thats why you see cities like Greenville primarily annexing commecial and industrial properties. These parcels generate more revenue for the city for the reason stated in that article.

I know that Columbia's expansion is largely becuase the city still controls the water system, so it can bring in more money that way. I am not sure how Charleston fits in to it?

[Topher1]

That means a 50-acre tract with 94 homes will cost the county about $80,000. But a 50-acre tract with 10 businesses would result in a surplus of more than $327,000 to the county, Bailey said.

The fallacy in this way of thinking is that residential developments CAN (and frequently do) positively impact the tax base. Obviously a 50 acre tract with less than two homes per acre will cost the city money to provide services...

- More/larger water lines will have to be run for the residents (as well as their half acre lawns).

- Power coverage covers a large area.

- New roads/cul-de-sacs for every resident.

- Garbage service is more time-consuming.

- Maintenace of all these utilities and city-owned properties (roads/beautification/etc) cost money, etc, etc...

Of course, if these 94 residences were included in a midrise building on an acre, or even as denser single-family homes, most of these monetary issues would be moot. Heck, the tax surplus would be solid if the 94 homes were combined with the 10 businesses in the quoted example for a true mixed-use development.

Reason #145324 that density is a positive attribute in cities. It sucks that our leaders are so unwilling to look even the slightest bit outside of the box for solutions to problems. Mention the word "density" and citizens and leaders run for the hills...

[Charleston native]

Exactly. Thats why you see cities like Greenville primarily annexing commecial and industrial properties. These parcels generate more revenue for the city for the reason stated in that article.

I know that Columbia's expansion is largely becuase the city still controls the water system, so it can bring in more money that way. I am not sure how Charleston fits in to it?

Charleston is a little unpredictable with the properties it annexes. Mayor Riley once said that he wanted Charleston to be a "residential city", and I have a little problem with that, especially after reading how annexing businesses does far more for the tax base. However, more businesses are being taken into the city with the new business parks on the Cainhoy peninsula and on Daniel Island. Bringing in more businesses in the Neck area would bring a huge tax base, so I'll be hoping for that. Also, Charleston does have strong annexation abilities because it controls most of the water system throughout the metro area.

[vicupstate]

With all due respect, Vic. That shortfall is paid for by businesses.

By residents, I meant the existing population, not strictly residential taxpayers vs. business taxpayers. But really, what is a business but a group of residents. The people who own the business live in one community or another. This shortfall is picked up by all the existing taxpayers, whether residents, businesses or industry. A business or industry will merely pass the additonal cost on to it's customers, if the market forces allow it, otherwise, it will be deducted from it's profit.

My point is, residential growth, by and large, does not 'pay for itself' as many people mistakenly believe. Counties like Lexington face a continual rise in property taxes because their growth is largely residential in nature.

Topher1 makes a very valid and important point. Residential growth can be a positive or negative based on many factors. Building or re-building in an existing area is typically much cheaper (all things being equal) than building on previously undeveloped land, in terms of the cost of providing government services.