How should we pay for growth?

[ChiefJoJo]

A series of article this morning in the N&O on the school situation:

The debate intensitfies in the Genral Assembly.

The school district expects more than 8,000 additional students to enter the school district this year.

At a recent meeting of the Blue Ribbon committee, Wake County manager David Cooke predicted property taxes could nearly double if additional sources of revenue aren't approved.

A list of some of the bills being discussed.

Barry Saunders with an opinion column on the risks to the community if the school mess isn't settled.

By coming across as vocal, self-centered parents complaining that a flawed-but-workable school board solution -- year-round schools -- will deprive their children of a real summer vacation, these residents are making people in less-favored parts of the country reconsider thoughts of moving here.

[sax184]

Solid column by Saunders, and he's right. If Wake County continues to manage their schools this way, they may "jump the shark" and fall off those "Best of" lists they are so proud to inhabit.

[Spatula]

We need development taxes for this reason. Someone's gotto pay for the new schools. Supply/demand doesn't work unless you're allowed to charge for supply.

[c_harmons]

I completely disagree with approach of attacking developers to pay for growth.

Can someone tell me what the cut off date was that you had to live in the Triangle by? If I moved here in 1990, does that mean I should have demanded that everyone that moved here after me should pay?

This is light of the fact my house appreciated greatly over that same time frame because of the influx of people.

All this is hypothetical, but I think it points out the hypocrisy that runs around this Town.

I do consider Russ and Crowder NIMBYs. Mostly because they don

[plus2]

I completely disagree with approach of attacking developers to pay for growth.

Can someone tell me what the cut off date was that you had to live in the Triangle by? If I moved here in 1990, does that mean I should have demanded that everyone that moved here after me should pay?

This is light of the fact my house appreciated greatly over that same time frame because of the influx of people.

All this is hypothetical, but I think it points out the hypocrisy that runs around this Town.

I do consider Russ and Crowder NIMBYs. Mostly because they don

[c_harmons]

But again, what is the fair cut off date to start charging people moving here? I have a real problem with the notion the people already here get to close the door by asking for impact fees from those that come after them. Plus, the people already here will have their houses increase in value by that $1,000 you want to charge all new homes.

I understand you pay taxes to help out, but won't the people coming in pay taxes too?

It seems like the only fair way to spread out the cost of growing is to make everyone pay. The transfer tax is the closest option I have seen.

[Spatula]

Almost everywhere in the country has higher impact fees than we do. We already have a system in place, but it's very regressive. It taxes by unit, not by property size. We need to restructure it so that it corresponds with the square-footage of the property being developed. This would be a great opportunity to give an incentive for good land use. And they don't 'attack developers'. Read the rest of the thread; we've been over this many times. They make different kinds of developments (read: more urban projects) more profitable. Developers don't lose a cent.

Your happy-go-lucky optimism will not pay for growth. Someone has to, and it's logical to recognize that the burden of the tax revenue that supports new infrastructure should fall on the newcomers that create the demand for it, not the ones who have lived here for several years, and already paid for their services.

A sales tax will hit hard in areas with higher property tax. These places need higher prices to stay competitive: prices on retail products, food, and rental space. Adding taxes to the higher prices will hurt downtown businesses, and established businesses, a lot more than it would affect cheesy discount marts on the furthest-out tract of capital boulevard. Not saying we should bring our pitchforks and torches to the legislative building and force the state to completely eliminate them, no. But relying on them less than some people would have us is probably good.

Consumption taxes should always be the last resort for revenue. They tend to really suck. Property taxes really shouldn't be an option for revenue, period. We need to focus more on impact fees. They're not the end-all-be-all of revenue, but they're a step in the right direction.

I do consider Russ and Crowder NIMBYs. Mostly because they don’t vote for anything. And then they try to say they are for smart growth. Where and how exactly? Look at their voting record, especially Crowder. IT IS PATHETIC.

[plus2]

But again, what is the fair cut off date to start charging people moving here? I have a real problem with the notion the people already here get to close the door by asking for impact fees from those that come after them. Plus, the people already here will have their houses increase in value by that $1,000 you want to charge all new homes.

[ChiefJoJo]

Almost everywhere in the country has higher impact fees than we do. We already have a system in place, but it's very regressive. It taxes by unit, not by property size. We need to restructure it so that it corresponds with the square-footage of the property being developed. This would be a great opportunity to give an incentive for good land use. And they don't 'attack developers'. Read the rest of the thread; we've been over this many times. They make different kinds of developments (read: more urban projects) more profitable. Developers don't lose a cent...

You have to look at it in context to understand it better. The rest of the council vote yes on everything, no matter how bad it is. That's not smart growth. That doesn't encourage competitive behavior. For every wrong side of the argument Crowder has chosen downtown, he's been on the right side of ten arguments in the burbs.

[Jones_]

blind if you think developers don't get their way in Wake Co (see this post for more). The days of development paying it's way via property taxes are long gone. Sprawl is not only environmentally negative, but it's also fiscally irresponsible. Infrastructure cost too much to build, and one needs to look no further than the school situation to see the results of the current policy. It does not work.

[ChiefJoJo]

Here's an interesting story that underscores how, once again, suburban growth does not pay for itself. This time it's the Holly Springs Police Dept, who cannot expand fast enough to keep up with the massive growth the town has encountered recently. So there's plenty of evidence, just in this thread, showing how growth indeed does not pay for roads, schools, and police services. When will everyone learn?

[Jones_]

Here's an interesting story that underscores how, once again, suburban growth does not pay for itself. This time it's the Holly Springs Police Dept, who cannot expand fast enough to keep up with the massive growth the town has encountered recently. So there's plenty of evidence, just in this thread, showing how growth indeed does not pay for roads, schools, and police services. When will everyone learn?

[c_harmons]

SALES TAX! And pump most into schools.

[Jones_]

SALES TAX! And pump most into schools.

[tjoad]

SALES TAX! And pump most into schools.

[c_harmons]

This is hardly a solution. Raising the sales tax unfairly hurts the elderly, lower income people/families, and established residents.

Some of the biggest beneficiaries of growth are the real estate/development industries, who are paying next to nothing to help cope with this growth. I hope you have a chance to read other posts on this thread to get familiar with the issue.

[tjoad]

We have to have developers. And I am actually getting real annoyed at cartoon after cartoon in the N&O that makes it looks like we don't need them. We need people to build us into a City. And as long as people find this area desirable, developers will be here.

[Jones_]

I disagree with that idea. Developers are supplying a product of which all of us have bought into. I know the home I live in, the office building I work at, and the shopping center I buy things from were built by developers. And they will keep building as long as people agree to buy what they are producing. We have to have developers. And I am actually getting real annoyed at cartoon after cartoon in the N&O that makes it looks like we don't need them. We need people to build us into a City. And as long as people find this area desirable, developers will be here. To say we need to up impact fees for developers gets back to my original point severalposts back. Because what will happen is the cost of new homes, office buildings, etc will go up for new buyers. So again we are saying that people just now coming here need to pay more than those that were here last year. It is just my opinion, but it doesn't seem fair.

[ChiefJoJo]

I think I said this before, but i think a modest impact fee won't affect the bottom line for developers much, and I would favor a graduated impact fee that gives incentives to quality infill development, and high fees for exurban development where roads, sewer, etc have to be extended to the site. It's really these city-limit-stretching developments that cause most of the problems.

Look at a map of Raleigh and check out that rediculous swath of the city that extends NE up Falls of Neuse up to Wakefield... you used to never hear about the need to widen FON Rd until all those thousands of people moved in there and demanded that a new road be extended over the river to their subdivision. Gee, I wonder where the traffic came from? This ~$20M expense is exactly the type of expense that is not paid for by the increased property tax base of that area, and that says nothing of the school needs in that area.

Sales taxes will not happen IMO. Our state sales tax rate is already in the top 10 in the US, and the Gov will not allow an increase... the transfer fee is the way to go... it will generate the most money ~$120M/yr I think, targets the growth problem very directly (larger real estate transactions will generate more revenue), and the best part is, if you don't want to pay just don't sell your house!

[JeffC]

This discussion is very enriching and edifying, but do we know if any of the bills actually met the crossover deadline at the legislature yesterday?

[plus2]

This discussion is very enriching and edifying, but do we know if any of the bills actually met the crossover deadline at the legislature yesterday?

[ChiefJoJo]

A new group is calling for more revenues, The Partnership for NC's Future.

[ncwebguy]

That is the group that I went to the focus group meeting I mentioned in post 68 in this thread.

I hope they are successful in convincing legislators of the urgency of the infrastructure needs and the shortfall created by not changing the existing revenue streams.

It seems like they have a lot of groups on board, but it is too early to tell if they will be enough.

[ChiefJoJo]

I thought this was a really interesting development in the transfer fee push...

Even some fiscal conservatives now favor the transfer fee, including Phil Jeffreys, the former Wake Co Commissioner, and current member of the fiscally conservative Wake County Taxpayer Association, was on board for a transfer tax.

"We need to make sure we go to the legislature and really push on real estate transfer fees," said Jeffreys, who was voted off the board in the last election after voting "no" on many spending proposals.

Even Wake CARES supports creating new revenues.

"Please properly fund our schools for their operating budget," said Kathleen Brennan, a founder of Wake CARES, a parent group that sued the system over mandatory student assignments to schools on a year-round calendar. "And support new and creative ways to build new schools."

But this one takes the cake...

Jennifer Lanane, president of the Wake chapter of the North Carolina Association of Educators, sought to give the commissioners a dictionary lesson on the meaning of the word "responsibility."

Lanane said teachers and students had shown they are responsible by consistently generating high scores on end-of-year tests. Wake County voters had been responsible in approving a $970 million school bond referendum in November.

But she said county commissioners had shortchanged the schools.

"I've heard it said that because Wake County has one of the lowest tax rates and one of the best school systems in the state, that shows you are fiscally responsible heroes," Lanane told the board. "I beg to disagree. All this shows me is that each year the parents, employees and the voters produce filet mignon, and you guys manage to serve it up on a paper plate."

BUSTED!!!

[JeffC]

I'm surprised noone's linked to the poll the N&O did that ran last week or over the weekend showing that vast majorities OPPOSED another bond issue and OPPOSED increases in property or sales tax, but overwhelmingly SUPPORTED impact fees and were closely divided on transfer taxes. Now to be sure, some of those results are the "don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax that fellow behind that tree" mentality, but it does show broad based support for the notion that those that contribute most to sprawl should contribute the most financially to ameliorating its effects.