INC NEWS - Premise of development industry's column isn't so simple

[Colin Crossman]

John,

The study you cite is useful to repudiate some of the claims of the 
Bryan/Byker piece, however the utility is limited.  You cite an article 
that describes the tax impact of residential, and specifically sprawling 
residential.

Unfortunately for your premise, the article also makes the following 
observation:

"Finally, commercial and industrial land uses emerge as being the 
largest net contributors to local financial resources.

The main finding of this research, then, is that farm/forest and 
commercial land uses subsidize residential land uses in Wake County. 
This is consistent with the findings of virtually every Cost of 
Community Services study that has been carried out in other communities 
throughout the U.S." - Page 8 of
http://www.onencnaturally.org/pages/obj/WAKE-COCS.pdf

The Bryan/Byker piece decrys problems with the development process in 
Durham, and those problems redound to the entire development industry, 
residential and commercial alike.

-Colin

John Schelp wrote:
> This week, the development industry wrote a column in
> the Herald-Sun saying 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" (H-S, 5/22/08).
>
> Really? Were it so simple... 
>
> New residential development doesn't pay for itself.
>
> Here's text from a Wake County/TJCOG/NCSU report...
>
> "The ratio for the residential sector is 0.65,
> implying that for each dollar in property tax and
> other revenues generated by residential land uses, the
> county spends $1.54 to provide services supporting
> those land uses. In other words, the residential
> sector is on balance a net user of local public
> finances... This contradicts claims that are sometimes
> made that residential development is a boon to county
> finances due to its expansion of the property tax
> base."
>
> You can read the full report here...
>
> http://www.onencnaturally.org/pages/obj/WAKE-COCS.pdf
>
> I'd only add that the more expensive the house, the
> better is the revenue/expenditure ratio.
> Unfortunately, the logical conclusion of many would be
> to build more Macmansions while discouraging
> affordable housing. (Another reason why we need a good
> mix of housing types in Durham.)
>
> Finding a "quicker way" to sprawl our way into the
> future won't address our growing problems with
> congested roads and kids going to school in trailers. 
>
> Faster sprawl will only make things worse.
>
> best,
> John 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>