Jump to content

question about math


jencoleslaw

Recommended Posts

i think it is very important to know the true cost of doing business, so that people make the investment (or not) and i don't think anyone has advocated for a COCS to be done for every project, i just wanted to know if any governing planning body had the right to request one. We ask for traffic studies and i'll be cod damned if those things are completely skewed on a regular basis. I mean, how often do we get traffic studies that actually say "if we build this, there will be gridlock."? Yeah, not often.

If CPC asked to have a COCS done, and it held up a project, and we didn't have the legal right to ask for one to be done, we'd be sued. So i want to know if we could, if we wanted. if you want people to support your project, you can't lie to them, or blow sunshine up their skirts--that's what makes the neighborhood groups so pissed off all the time--that the wool is always being pulled over their eyes, and it makes them very suspicious and maybe if folks were actually honest and said "this project is going to cost the city this much money in infrastructure improvements but when it is done, it is really going to add to the tourism base, or the tax base or whatever" but that isn't what happens, and I think that's too bad because people can, in fact, take the truth. It is lies they have a tough time swallowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The better the assumptions built into the model, the better the projections. This is key. For example, by manipulating the assumptions casino people on both sides of the debate can manipulate the numbers to demonstrate their arguments. If a casino proponent doesn't assume crime will increase, then it won't factor in the cost of increased policing.

...

A limitation of a COCS analysis is that it is project specific. It isn't designed to evaluate how a project will affect the fiscal picture of a whole town. A COCS study will nearly always demonstrate that it is cheaper to conserve land than to develop it with housing on that particular parcel (unless it is really, really expensive housing). But, the COCS doesn't take into account that if every parcel of land is conserved in a town, then land for housing becomes so expensive that the only housing that is cost effective to build is McMansions, if any. COCS usually conclude that people are a fiscal negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
to follow up on this question which no one has actually been able to answer, i'll ask another one that i've asked many times and never gotten an answer:

What is the proof that a development "will lower taxes" for a community? That line is always trotted out and yet after it is there there's never any talk about lower taxes. Are there really communities that find that their taxes are lower because they granted something a bunch of variances and allowed it to be built there? Can anyone actually point to a community or a city or state where the residents benefitted by lower taxes as promised?

I wasn't involved in planning or politics so much when the mall was built but i'm willing to bet one of the positive spin sound bytes was that a development this size would lower taxes--has it? (don't get me wrong--i love the mall i have no beef with the mall except the parking garage is criminal) but i am merely using it as an example. Perhaps that wasn't one of its selling points, but i certainly hear a lot about how big development lowers taxes for residents, but i'm not sure i've ever understood how and if that actually happens...

thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but do you know how powerful it would be to be able to point to, say 10 projects where the city officials and/or developers raved about how it would lower taxes for residents and be able to show that those projects never accomplished such a thing, or even better--raised taxes and lowered service? I can't believe that no one has ever done a study on it, or on the other side, that projects that claim to increase property values actually decrease property values. It would be so valuable to have that information, especially for any new development or redevelopment because i think people get all dollarsigns and starry-eyed when they hear that something will be giving them cash in one way or another and way too often it is just not true.

i would love for a developer or a city council member or an other official to just be honest. "This might not lower your property or income tax, but in the long run it will be worth it because it will make Providence a more viable city--bringing in more businesses and people and services that increase your quality of life--and when the city has more money coming in we can put it towards more green spaces, more public spaces, better transit, snow plowing and street sweeping."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.