INC NEWS - So, a developer and a community guy are sitting at Rue Cler...

[Kevin Davis]

Hi John,

I alluded to these points in a tangential way over at my blog this morning,
but I wanted to address the question directly.

The $1.54 figure, while accurate for Wake County based on the study you
provided to the INC list earlier, is relevant not just for new development,
but for ALL residential.

That is to say, under the way in which cities and counties *choose* to fund
their budgets, residences get a break and commercial properties pay the
difference.

Of course, the logical solution would be "less residential and more
commercial," but of course the former is a prerequisite for the latter.
There'd be no employees to fill office buildings, or to shop at retail,
without residential.  Or, of course, we could just lower taxes on commercial
and raise them on residential properties, though that would hurt the poor
and seniors -- groups whom I suspect benefit from the way communities choose
to fund development.

In the Wake County study you forwarded to the INC list (which was helpful
reading -- thanks for doing so), it points out that none of the other
cities/counties in the comparison set were able to fully fund their
residential services with their residential tax base.  I suspect that
represents more an intentional choice on how to distribute the burden of
city services.

Additionally, the $1.54 figure -- which I believe you're calculating on the
basis of the inverse of $0.65, which is the ratio of tax revenue to
expenditures on behalf of residential development -- comes from an
assumption in the Wake report that allocates either none or a very, very
small share of the cost of providing public schooling as a benefit to
commercial properties, instead appearing to allocate most of that to
residential.

Yet, as we all know, a community underperforming in its schools will not
attract commercial office development; and will therefore suffer low
household incomes; and will therefore not attract prime or sufficient
retail.

Mind you, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion about
preserving the ability of the Planning Commission to defer projects for a
few cycles, which I think is useful in encouraging neighborhood dialogue.
I'm on the fence on making the annexation cycle quarterly instead of
twice-yearly; given that City Council just considered a set of annexation
requests that were almost six months old, there may already be substantial
wait involved in the process.

My bottom line is I'd like to continue to see a vigorous public debate over
approving rezoning and Comp Plan changes to support changes in land use; but
for those cases where a project complies with the zoning/land use in place,
I'd like to see the City handle the site plan and technical review process
in a much more competent fashion.

Kevin


-- 
Kevin Davis
ksdavis at gmail.com
www.bullcityrising.com
(919) 323-8432

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 3:14 PM, John Schelp <bwatu at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Developer: We need to find a "quicker way" to get
> projects through because "new development creates
> much-needed property tax revenue for our city and
> county governments."
>
> Community: It's not that simple. New residential
> development doesn't pay for itself.
>
> Developer: What!?
>
> Community: For every dollar in property tax and other
> revenues generated by residential land uses, local
> governments spend $1.54 to provide services. This
> contradicts claims that residential development is a
> boon to county finances due to its expansion of the
> property tax base.
>
> Developer: Well, don't look behind that curtain...
> Look over here -- commercial development will recoup
> the lost money.
>
> Community: So, to make up for the money lost for new
> residential development, we need more commercial
> development?
>
> Developer: Yes.
>
> Community: So, the solution to our problems with
> sprawl is more... sprawl?
>
> Developer: Yes. It's the perfect solution.
>
> Community: Thanks, you're very clear.
>
> ****
>
> Our taxes keep going up while traffic congestion gets
> worse, kids go to school in trailers, and air quality
> suffers.
>
> Meanwhile, the development industry continues to be
> the biggest contributors to local political campaigns
> (and spend big bucks opposing school impact fees and
> other efforts to fill the gap).
>
> The solution to sprawl isn't more sprawl.
>
> We can do better. We can start by getting rid of these
> proposals from the development industry to
> "streamline" the approval process:
>
> * don't jettison the Planning Commission's ability to
> defer a project,
>
> * don't speed up annexations.
>
> warmest regards,
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20080527/a1350b6f/attachment.htm