Megaprojects Fall Hard

Nearly nine years ago when I was moving back to Virginia, I had to pick a place to live. Somehow, we ended up in southwestern Chesterfield with a house on a lot with huge loblolly pine trees — an attraction that I guess involved me somehow channeling Eastern North Carolina where I had lived off an on since I was 18 months old.

It is the outer edge of fast-growing suburbia, exurbia, I guess, but I am sure EMR will set me straight. Traffic wasn’t too bad and here and there were old farms with giant oak trees still flanking U.S.360, better known as Hull Street.

How things have changed. First, there was a mad rush of strip malls and new subdivisions. The old farm is now a Super Wal-Mart in the making. New restaurants of all types popped up, generally enriching the choices if you can get past the dearth of decent service. The labor pool out here in exurbia is truly thin. Last week, when a relative was visiting and we tried out a new seafood joint, it took three waiters and 45 minutes just to get our drink order straight.

Now comes the news that one of the largest planned subdivisions — Lower Magnolia Green — has defaulted on a $96.9 million loan and the land is up for auction. The plan had been for 3,550 new homes although not that many have been built and even fewer occupied, leaving owners in the lurch because it seems that some promised amenities won’t be coming anytime soon. I wondered what was going on since every time I drove past, I saw some bulldozers, but they hadn’t been moved in weeks.

This is the second time since the recession began that Chesterfield has seen a major subdivision tank. Last fall, as economic storm wailed, an even bigger project called Branner Station with 4,988 homes was put on indefinite hold. I know that plenty of projects in even faster-growing Loudoun and Prince William Counties have suffered similar fates.

Not a bad thing, actually. Chesterfield needs a breather. The Magnolia Green project dates back to the early 1990s when Chesterfield’s Republican board was packed with pro-growth types. It wasn’t so much that they were bankrolled by developers, although they were, it was that growth became a kind of religious mantra for them. And we’ve been paying for the consequences ever since with overstuffed schools, roads, bad waiters, etc.

The popping of the real estate balloon did Magnolia Green in. And that brings up another point. One of my favorite economic columnists is James Surowiecki of The New Yorker. His most recent work looks at the financial services industry and there is a tie to Chesterfield’s woes with overbuilding.

To understand what has been happening in finance in the past few years, Surowiecki says we have to deconstruct the various phases of financing. Banking used to be considered a boring, plodding career path. Rather than being an end unto themselves, banks merely worked to serve more creative endeavors, such as setting up U.S. Steel and International Harvester in the late 19th Century or helping electrify cities and the countryside in the 1920s. My grandfather was part of that. We was a bank president in Western Massachusetts, among his other businesses, and helped wire his town with light bulbs. The next wave came with financing info tech in the 1980s and 1990s.

But this latest banking boom is very much a different animal. As Surowiecki writes: “The housing bubble was unique, and uniquely awful. Each of the previous waves had come in response to a profound shift in the real economy. With the housing bubble, by contrast, there was no meaningful development in the real economy that could explain why homes were suddenly such much attractive or valuable. The only thing that had changed, really, was that banks were flinging cheap money at would-be homeowners, essentially conjuring up profits out of nowhere.”

As banks joined in the party and raked in profits, at least for a while, we ended up with “acres of empty houses in Phoenix,” Surowiecki writes.” Or, for that matter, lots of ripped up red clay and idle bulldozers in Chesterfield.

What’s next? Perhaps a rethink of how Virginia’s county boards and their planning staffs consider such mega-projects in the future. They may be distracted with budget shortfalls, but the chance is right now to make a major shift in philosophy. Will they seize it? I hope so.

Peter Galuszka


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

99 responses to “Megaprojects Fall Hard”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The housing bubble was unique, and uniquely awful. Each of the previous waves had come in response to a profound shift in the real economy. With the housing bubble, by contrast, there was no meaningful development in the real economy that could explain why homes were suddenly such much attractive or valuable.”

    Where has he been? That one is an easy question to answer. Excess money has to go somewhere. After the tech bust, Enron, and a few other cases of excessive corpate and CEO behavior, people were afraid of the market.

    Real Estate seemed secure, by comparison. When enogh people got in, the market started movingup, a few people did well, and before long groupthink set in. Mob behavior, lemmings, irrational exuberance, market psychology: call it what you like.

    When there is money to be made people learn fast. Besides, what were their other options, GM stock?

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Perhaps a rethink of how Virginia’s county boards and their planning staffs consider such mega-projects in the future. “

    One would hope so. We developed rules to stop the “big developers” but the result was only big developers could survive, and only by taking big risks.

    A guy building one house cannot afford big infrastructure improvements, but enough of those guys can eventually cause infrastructure problems. So we basically put thme out of business in favor of huge projects where we can negotiate huge proffers.

    Then we wonder why we have megaprojects.

    And, of course, underlying that, the developers have to believe there is sufficient demand to sell their products. Where did the demand come from? Decades of county boards that said “We have to stop this rampant growth.” or “We have to stop the big developers.”

    So, we slap on additional price tags, like “x number affordable units”, which only the big developers can pay. These projects take years to plan, approve, and develop, and all the while demand is bottled up.

    So you see places like Loudoun taking violent political swings in their development behavior, which makes the planning process even more dysfunctional.

    Brambleton is a huge new housing development with everything from big apartment buildings to townhomes to Mcmansions and it abuts slam up against a completely obsolete rural area, between Brambleton and Lenah.

    Those people saw the handwriting on the wall and formed an organization to negotiate the sale of their property. Then the board changed and those people are still sitting there. I sell hay to a guy there that grows goats, and horses, and some vegetables.

    He can do that for around 300 years an not make the money he would get if he was simply allowed to sell.

    Even in todays market.

    Behind every “big developer” we stop there is another local story we miss.

    RH

  3. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    this is much simpler than we are making it and a planning commissioner summed it up succinctly in a recent board meeting.

    He said [paraphrasing] – used to be when I was young, you had to have 20% down and you only qualified for a payment about 1/3 of your verified employment income.

    Then right before the housing bubble collapsed – you could get a loan on a 300,000+ house for no down payment and no proof of employment.

    Now, we’re back to 20% down and a verifiable income.”

    Moral of the story: Magnolia Green along with all the wannabies suddenly encountered the real world and they found out that there would be precious few “qualified” buyers for their 3550 (likely) 300k+ homes.

    Will there be no more home building?

    Nope.

    But the market for 300K homes is going to slide back to a number more realistic while the demand for houses at the 200K level are going to be just fine.

    Remember “starter” homes.. where the basement was unfinished, and “contractor” grade appliances and cabinets were standard and that deck on the back did not exist but instead the sliding door open to boards to keep you from falling out of the house?

    Ray says that these kinds of homes are no cheaper… thus “affordability” is a ruse.

    I’d submit that a 200K house with 1 or 2 bedrooms lacking the 4 bedrooms and numerous amenities of the 300K+ home – are, in fact, less expensive AND more affordable.

    Is the profit margin less?

    You bet it is.

    There is less profit in econobox cars than Cadillacs also but they still make and sell them – to the folks who want an affordable car.

    Ditto with homes.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    RH,
    Have to disagree with you. The stock market did just great from 2002 to 2007. Lots of people made lots of money — on paper. Some put it into second and third heavily leveraged houses. Pop. Pop.

    Peter Galuszka

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Ray says that these kinds of homes are no cheaper… thus “affordability” is a ruse.”

    Don’t put words in my mouth. That is not what I said.

    What is said was that cheaper is not the same as more affordable. You can afford what you buy if you get less: that does NOT make what you buy “more affordable”.

    The other thing that I said is that you do not make a given home, [before you tried to change the argument by making it a cheaper home] more “affordable” by shifting the cost from the buyer to the builder, epecially through the use of forced “incentives”.

    That kind of thinking is nothing but a deceitful path to stealing.

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yes, but what was driving the market? Almost entirely home sales, and the consumer spending that went with it.

    Anyway, i knew plenty of people who got burned in the tech buble and vowed to “stay out” of the market. What they didn’t realize is that as soon as they put their money down – it went straight to the market.

    All I’m saying is that there is a kind of manic, self feeding frenzy that makes bubbles much more likely than we would expect, given that we believe in rational and efficient markets.

    RH

  7. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    but what we were not talking about “cheap” but rather “affordable”.

    if you buy “less” it certainly is “affordable” if it means the difference between you being able to own a house or not.

    “affordable” home means an owner-occupied dwelling that has a roof, windows, bedrooms, a kitchen, etc.. that can and is built for far less money than homes with “more”.

    It does not mean “cheap” or cheap quality.

    I never suggested that the cost be shifted to the developer but rather what might be built or not and the accompanying profit margins were not the sole decision of a developer and the local government plays a role in the kind and type of development including density.

    The only mistake that local governments have made is by granted more “by-right” uses to some land … “upzoning” rather than leaving it as it was and require ALL development to be in the form of a PROPOSAL rather than a vested right.

    Affordable Housing is just one of many types of housing that can be built – perhaps with a lower profit margin than others much less a Camry has less profit than a Cadillac and developers are free to seek opportunities that suit them and to turn down ones that do not.

  8. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    the “bubble” was little more than the “creation” of a whole lot more potential home buyers than existed prior…

    and those potential home buyers were the very same people that a few years earlier were not in the home-buying market – and for good reason – they had no money down and they did not have the incomes sufficient to pay the mortgages.

    When we lowered the home-buying standards so that people with bad credit and minimal jobs could become the proud owner of a 300K home – that they would then .. seek to “flip” ..

    what we need ..is we created the opportunity for lots of folks to get into the flim-flam business.

    You had out 300K houses to anyone who walks down the street and tell them to see if they can sell it to another sucker for $350K ..and they’ll say “sure, why not”….

    they’re the same folks that take their paychecks down to the 7-11 to buy lottery tickets…

    so.. there is no special “magic” with the housing bubble..

    we did a totally stupid thing to feed what many believed was an economy that depended on housing …

    and folks..what did it get us?

    well..for many of us – it got us about 1/3 of our 401Ks and our own homes if we were unlucky enough to have paid 300K for a home worth 220K.

    so we all paid for this stupidity…

    let’s hope that we don’t repeat it anytime soon…

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The affordable housing issue is still here. In many places in Fairfax County the land is very expensive so building affordable housing makes no sense from a business perspective. Fairfax County still has it wrong as well. Affordable Housing shouldn’t be set at median income levels. In years past at least 1/3of people have been renting and thats perfectly healthy even in Fairfax County.

    The planning comsissioner hit the nail on the head on the larger point though. Lending agencies decided you could get a loan for no money down and income didn’t really matter. I always wondered who was actually buying these 700,000 townhouses. Turns out nobody can with actual standards and as a results the townhouse are now 350,000 which is a much more practical price for a townhouse.

    NMM

  10. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    Yeah, I guess it was okay to move out on the 360 corridor when you did it, but now that you are there, I suppose we need to “re-think” things and take a “breather”. Nice.

  11. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “affordable” has more than one context…. and is paradoxical at the same time.

    Someone who works in NoVa and wants a 4 bedroom two story home on a 1/2 acre is not going to find that home in NoVa unless they can pay what? 750K or more and even then.. it likely will be surrounded on all sides by heavily-traveled roads and other development?

    But that same house can be had for what 1/2 the money in Spotsylvania County.. a “mere” 50 miles distant?

    But “affordable” from a Spotsylvania County perspective is a place – that a deputy or entry level school teacher or your average medical technologist would want.

    I agree.. there’s nothing wrong with rental and you know.. it used to be.. that you’d rent while you scrimped for years sometimes….. did not buy a new car… did not eat out or take cruises.. but saved your pennies for that down payment on a place of your own and hoped that the rate of your saving exceeded the rate of inflation….

    and if you commuted…you rode in carpool or took a recycled Trailways bus back and forth.

    The problem with Tylers viewpoint is.. that sooner or later.. what happens to US 360 – and who pays to expand it’s capacity?

    This is why I support toll roads.

    That way.. the folks who choose to commute – will pay their own way… and not expect other taxpayers to pay for expanding their road.

    but I give Tyler his due on the “I’m here.. so let’s shut the door” … mindset… that’s in play also.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Tyler,
    I am perfectly happy with my property here — I got 4 bedrooms and nearly an acre and a half with community trails, pool, tennis court, etc. for about $200K. As much as I detest homeowners associations, at least they will pretty much keep this area a bit of an oasis. I have a perfectly fine mortgage and don’t plan on leaving soon.
    But what I have seen here over the past nine years is developers building lots and lots of smaller houses on tiny lots and charging $300 to $500 K while the marketing folks come up with all kinds of dreamy BS that homebuyers are getting a great deal and a great lifestyle.

    Plus, my contractor friends tell me the newer houses are more shoddily constructed. The developers planned to get a much bigger profit margin and for a while they did.
    Over nine years, Chesterfield’s good school rep has been tarnished by overcrowding since the old boards did not plan at all. Teachers now face layoffs despite overcrfowding. And we have one hell of a lot more traffic than before.
    Now I know a free market lover such as yourself is going to hit me over the head with the idea that somehow I want to close the door. I do — on excessive growth that is built not in the interests of the community, but on the development community’ attempt to squeeze as much margin out of every project that they can.
    The subprime mess and the real estate crash, as painful as they are, are providing a badly needed slow-down and as Larry G says, are bringing prices back down to earth. If greedy developers suffer — and not all are — gee that’s just too bad.
    Peter Galuszka

  13. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    Larry — we get to agree for once…I like toll roads, too … nice free market tool

    Peter — I am not going to criticize anyone for squeezing profit out of a deal … desire for profits (or as you might call it, greed — and I personally like greed) leads to innovation and economic growth.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Tyler,
    I fear your views are a bit simplistic. It was the greed and wanton desire to squeeze all the profits they could out of subprime lending without thinking over the risks to their companies and shareholders and the nation that got financial service companies into their mess and caused the current economic downturn.
    You forget that a lot of the effort is being done for shareholders — the true owners of any public company — and these guys got screwed especially when you see bank stocks go from $60 to a buck.
    I would really like to see you try to answer this one dispassionately and without cheerleading. Just kidding.

    Peter Galuszka

  15. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Peter: Enjoyed your perspective on Chesterfield.

    Your summary of the housing bubble is good as far as it goes but what the author you quoted missed in his assessment of the housing bubble is this:

    First World Nation states, NAFTA, EU, World Bank, IMF et. al. have worked to keep interest rates low to stimulate ‘growth’ – aka, Globalization and Mass OverConsumption.

    That has resulted in cheap money for ‘growth.’ However, for a decade many US of A citizens in the middle three fifths of the Ziggurat have had no place to “invest” and make a reasonable return.

    Yes, the stock market did go up from the mid 90s to 2008 and some did put thier earnings into a bigger house. However, everyone should know by now that the stock markets are gambling venues tipped in favor of mega investors, not the sort that buy $300,000 to $1,500,000 dwellings.

    Even if some of these folks were “in” the stock market they needed to “diversify” and agents that profit from bubbles and churn tout real estate.

    The result is that 20 to 30 percent of the population kept buying bigger and bigger dwellings, exacerbating a trend that has been going on for 35 years.

    This is not instead of what your author says, it is in addition to the role of the banks. Then there was the lending to the wrong folks…

    The bottom line is a vastly over built residential market – The Wrong Size House in the Wrong Location.

    There is also the commercial (retail / service) market. That shoe is dropping soon. Doctors, Dentists etc. who created limited partnerships to build places for there several office locations will be hit hard. You will see it in Chesterfield. Look forward to your report.

    On the issue of Vocabulary, here is a little exercise to help with Vocabulary and, via Regional Metrics, better explain what is happening in the far reaches of Chesterfield County:

    You are good with graphics. Put up a map of the Richmond NUR – OK none exists outside the SPI office so use the Richmond MSA. Choose the Capitol for the Centroid of the Core and draw a series of circles with radii of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, etc. miles.

    Now you have a way to describe just where you live and where the project you describe is located without resorting to misunderstood and imprecise terms.

    Take the exercise a step farther. Calculate the holding capacity of the area inside the Radius = 15 Miles.

    Assume half that area is Region-serving Openspace and Open land. The other half would be Urban fabric at MINIMUM sustainable density at the Alpha Community Scale. (A lot of the area has a much higher density already but let that go for now.)

    Holding capacity is 2.25 Million citizens + / – . That is a lot more that the current population.

    So if location-variable costs are fairly allocated, there will NEVER be a need for Urban projects outside R = 15 EXCEPT for components of Balanced But Disaggregated Communities in the Countryside.

    If location-variable costs are not fairly allocated all citizens will pay the subsidy to maintain dysfunctional human settlement patterns – until the resources run out.

    EMR

  16. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    It was the greed and wanton desire to squeeze all the profits they could out of subprime lending without thinking over the risks to their companies and shareholders and the nation that got financial service companies into their mess and caused the current economic downturn.Was it the desire to subprime, or was it a federal government telling them to get even unqualified buyers into homes and not to worry because Freddie and Fannie (basically, the government) would be there to bail them out?

  17. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    sorry for the runtogether –can’t seem to get it to recognize hard returns 🙁

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The problem as I see it is pretty simple.

    Uncle Sam (and his relatives at the state and local level) is THE CAUSE of and now THE SOLUTION to all of our problems.

    They caused it by poor planning and regulation and now they are trying to solve it by bailing everyone out.

    It’s not going to work folks…sure we (as a nation) might wipe the slate clean and cook the books a little more but in the long run we ALL are paying for this mess.

    Wait until your kids and grandkids have to pay all of this back…good thing the schools suck because anyone with half a brain would do one of two things if/when they figure out what is really going on….

    1) Leave and go someplace else.
    2) Revolt and start over.

    “If location-variable costs are not fairly allocated all citizens will pay the subsidy to maintain dysfunctional human settlement patterns – until the resources run out.”

    There’s only one resource that really matters and that’s money. It’s either going to be gone or worthless….stay tuned.

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Tyler, Tyler, Tyler,
    You bring up that old right wing chestnut that all of the problems were government led diktat to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loan money to lesser people who didn’t deserve it.Give me a break.
    Why did Merrill Lynch, Wachovia and COuntrywide all go down? It wasn’t because some goody-goody in Washington wanted them to make homeowners of irresponsible rednecks or blacks or Latinos. No. It was because they all got involved in buying up subprime lendng firms (while some redlined anyway, go look it up). And why did they do that? Because subprime is so gad-danged profitable!.
    One lunch with you is not enough. You are a hard case. I need to finish the job with another or two or three more. You need education, my boy.
    Peter Galuszka

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “but what we were not talking about “cheap” but rather “affordable”.”

    You are changing the ground rules again and avoiding the real issue.

    The first argument was whether the county could require some units to be sold as affordable, as a condition of building approval.

    The assumption being that all units are the same (a requirement in the spotsy case). Yes, the county can do that, but it does not make the homes any more affordable,it just shifts the cost to the builder. You have to look at the total system: county, builder and buyer.

    The more common case is that the county requires more affordable units, recognizes that this is going to come out of the builders profit, and so the county allows the builder more density, so he can make back (some of) his losses albeit with extra expense and labor. In this case the county becmes a kind of partner, because at higher densities and lower prices the county cannnot expect to make the housing “pay” on infrastructure costs.

    But to simply require the builder to sell 10% of units below market, and letting him cut corners on cosntruction buys no one anything. The houses are simply cheaper. They are alsoo “more affordable” but only if you don’t count the difference in value. From a systems point of view it is a lie and a scam. not only that, but the builder still makes less money than otherwise, so it is stealing as well. This makes no sense for anybody: not th ecounty, not the builder, and not the buyer.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I never suggested that the cost be shifted to the developer but rather what might be built or not “

    Of course it shifts costs to the developer. You build 100 townhomes that you can sell for $250k apiece. Or you build 90 for 250k and tenn for 200k. Even if the 200k homes cost him less he also made less revenue and less profit, for essentially the same work and more risk.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “by granted more “by-right” uses to some land … “upzoning” rather than leaving it as it was “

    I’m pretty sure that when you look nto it those places that wer “upzoned” were at one point in time “downzoned” first, and without compensation.

    The queston is when do you start being fair? When did you stop beating your wife?

    All I can tell you is that having been on the down side of that six times, I would be outraged if I got upzoned and someone wanted me to pay. it is just a little too conveneient way to rewrite history.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “But the market for 300K homes is going to slide back to a number more realistic while the demand for houses at the 200K “

    The $300 k homes are going to BE $200k homes. THAT is how you make homes affordable: build a lot of them, too many even.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…developers are free to seek opportunities that suit them and to turn down ones that do not.”

    Nonsense. It is not a free market for developers. they only get to seek opportunities from governments that want to soak them. That think they can get credit for providing “affordable housing” when it comes at the builders expense.

    Let some community have a sale: free guarnteed building permits for anything you can put up for under $200k, no wiating, no hearings, and watch what happens.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “if we were unlucky enough to have paid 300K for a home worth 220K.

    so we all paid for this stupidity… “

    But look at all the affordable housing we got. If affordable housing is the goal we should do it AGAIN.

    or is it that you finally figured out tht cost benefit curves cut both directions: there is one place where they cross and we get the max benefit at the least cost.

    If we miss that point, THEN you are right: we all pay for stupidity.

    RH

  26. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “Was it the desire to subprime, or was it a federal government telling them to get even unqualified buyers into homes and not to worry because Freddie and Fannie (basically, the government) would be there to bail them out?”

    Tyler – did the government tell Moody and company to rate the sub-primes AAA which allowed them to be sold for much more than they were worth?

    Yes – the government urged higher levels of home ownership but they did not tell the banking community to go about it stupidity…. they did that all by themselves and almost brought down the entire economy in doing it…

    and then for the rest of us – including developers and homebuilders – we KNEW that people who could not afford homes were getting them.. and superheating the housing market.

    In this blog, several folks for several years were talking about homes as investments… and an economy based on the sale of homes and the stuff that goes into them.

    These subprime loan people.. some of them did not even sell their homes when they increased in value…they went back out and got 2nd and 3rd mortgages to pay off their maxed out credit cards.

    Did the Government tell the loan companies to give these second and 3rd mortgages…??

  27. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “Of course it shifts costs to the developer. You build 100 townhomes that you can sell for $250k apiece. Or you build 90 for 250k and tenn for 200k”

    the ten are not the same unit.

    They look the same on the outside but they are smaller and have less amenities. Smaller, less deluxe appliances, no deck, no crown molding, no chair rail… plastic one piece tub unit, etc.

    They are “starter” homes and they DO cost LESS – but there is also less profit in them.

    The builder would prefer, obviously to max his profit on all of the units – but then they may not get approval so it’s a negotiation – that the developer/builder is free to walk away from and seek a better deal elsewhere.

  28. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “I’m pretty sure that when you look nto it those places that wer “upzoned” were at one point in time “downzoned” first, and without compensation.”

    I think you are totally wrong and you know it.

    You had to start somewhere first and then upzone…

    happened all the time.. great swaths of land in some counties were upzoned.. happened in my county… virtually the entire county was upzoned 30 years ago and then subsequently downzoned.

    since no one payed the county for the upzones.. why would they be entitled to compensation when it went the other way?

  29. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “I would be outraged if I got upzoned and someone wanted me to pay.”

    What if you were offered an upzone if you did pay for it?

  30. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “Nonsense. It is not a free market for developers. they only get to seek opportunities from governments that want to soak them. “

    right…. that’s why NoVa and Prince William, Stafford and Spotsylvania look like they do with hundreds of thousands of acres of developed properties.

    all done by developers who got “soaked” – right?

  31. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “Let some community have a sale: free guarnteed building permits for anything you can put up for under $200k, no wiating, no hearings, and watch what happens.”

    I think some communities would consider this – but they are concerned that the Home Builders folks would sue them for preferential treatment if it were made an official ordinance so for now.. it’s a negotiation – a voluntary one.

    Often the county will ask for consideration but I’ve seen developments approved that did not have affordable units even though the county asked for them because in the end – the other merits of the project made it worth it.

    sometimes it just boils down to whether the county wants the proffer money or the affordable units instead.

  32. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “But look at all the affordable housing we got. If affordable housing is the goal we should do it AGAIN.”

    you ARE … DAFT !!!!

    You’re essentially advocating that everyone’s 401K drop another third in value…

    do you know how many people – who had nothing at all to do with any of this – are having to work 10 years longer than they planned on?

    do you know how many folks have lost their jobs AND their 401K’s and are essentially having to start all over at the age of 40 or 50?

    This was NEVER about affordable housing in the first place.

    Not when you have folks with no viable incomes or down payments buying 400K condos and second homes… RVs… etc…

    This is why most of the homes that are sitting empty are NOT small, modest, classic “affordable” starter-type homes but rather McMansion type homes.

    We had a big lottery… a ponzi scheme based on home building and it blew up and it harmed a lot of people who did nothing wrong… who paid their bills and mortgages and had saved their money for retirement and for college for their kids and they got wiped out….

    all those folks who were gungo ho on the “housing” economy – were – let’s be polite – “not smart”.

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “all done by developers who got “soaked” – right?”

    Most probably, but not entirely. What we know is that proffers are typically absorbed partly by the builder in terms of less profit, partly by the landowner, (in that with proffers in place he is only willing to pay less for the land), and part is passed on to the buyer.

    But in good times, the builder will simpy count proffers as part of his costs, tack profit on top of that, and pass the costs on to the buyer. Since there is no real, intrinsic alue attached to these costs, it is the first part of the home price to disappear in bad times, and this is why newer communities have taken much bigger price hits than older ones. Newer communities are also located farther from town.

    If the proffer requirements are fair and rational, that’s one thing, but in some communities they were jacked up just to keep building at bay. Just like the proffers for “affordable housing they were advertised and promoted as something they were not.

    It is easy to attack the builders as if they are leeches on the community, but that is a hard and risky business, often used as a whipping boy for the entire economy. You need good profits in the good times to weather the downturns.

    The attitude that their “exces profits” are free for the taking just because they are the “bad guys” makes bad government policy. Worse than that, it doesn’t really buy us anyting: it is voodoo economics.

    RH

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If affordable housing is the goal we should do it AGAIN.”

    I’ll say it again, so you understand.

    If affordable housing is the goal we should do it AGAIN.”

    You can look at the home sales in severla states, yur favorite claifornia included.

    There were more than twice as many homes sold in California this April than last April.

    The average price was one third lower, but the totla dollar value in sales was higher.

    As the Republicans would say, lower “taxes”, in this case home prices, lead to more economic activity.

    Overall, housing in California next year will be more affordable next year than it was last year.

    While they may not like it, even the people who made their payments, never sold and never moved are also living in more affordable homes.

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You’re essentially advocating that everyone’s 401K drop another third in value…”

    Homes are not 401k’s and they are not checking accounts either. That line of reasoning is part of how we got into this mess.

    Retirement analysts have predicted for years that if the boomers decide to cash in their homes all at once they are going to be in for a shock.

    RH

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “What we know is that proffers are typically absorbed partly by the builder in terms of less profit, partly by the landowner, (in that with proffers in place he is only willing to pay less for the land), and part is passed on to the buyer.”

    What is this “we”? A mouse in your pocket?

    What this show is that ‘you’ have no idea how the economics of land developement work.

    “We” hope you know more about mowing hay. Being this far off on a mower will put you in front of the cycle bar chasing rabbits.

    Just leave the discussion to someone who know what they are talking about

  37. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    My experience has been that builder treats the proffer like another line on the balance sheet (like building permit fees, cost of drywall, etc).

    The wrinkle is the amount is negotiated by the developer who in many cases is not the builder. (For those unfamiliar with the terms, developers sell lots and builders sell homes).

  38. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    “If the proffer requirements are fair and rational, that’s one thing, but in some communities they were jacked up just to keep building at bay. Just like the proffers for “affordable housing they were advertised and promoted as something they were not.”

    well I gave you an opportunity to look at my localities methodology and fiscal analysis and I never heard back whether it was good, bad or indifferent nor whether other communities that you could demonstrate were themselves …good, bad or indifferent…

    just the nebulous claim that “some” of them rip off the developers”

    “It is easy to attack the builders as if they are leeches on the community,”

    no it’s not.

    I do not think developers nor builders are leeches on the community..

    Where I live, many of them and their wives and kids walk down the same supermarket aisles that I do.

    they go to local churches and their kids play sports with other kids in the community.

    Proffers are not about “ripping” off the “leeches”.

    Proffers are about how to build a school for a new kid on the block.

    What is a fair and equitable way to get that school built in time for him to attend it when he moves in to this parents new home?

    In a community with a growth rate of around 2% – the existing taxpayers can put aside a certain amount of taxes every year to fund the CIPs needed for a new school every few years.

    but when the growth rate accelerates – more new schools are needed than the existing taxes can support and something has to give.

    If the BOS decides to lump these costs on existing residents – they’ll suffer the consequences.

    If the BOS charges too much for proffers – they’ll make houses too expensive for even the local folks who need truly “affordable” housing (as opposed to the NoVa drive til you qualify commuter.

    I think that we MUST have some level of proffers which will work essentially the same way – fiscally -that water and sewer does.

    At the end of the day – the folks who use the water/sewer have to pay the capital and operational costs.

    We can’t be charging the folks with drainfields the water/sewer costs of others.

    The same goes for firehouses, libraries and schools.

    Everyone needs to pay their fair and equitable pro-rata share of the infrastructure that is needed to serve them.

    there is no free lunch here.

    and it has absolutely nothing about demonizing developers and builders – who are often – members of the same communities that they are building in.

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “do you know how many people – who had nothing at all to do with any of this – are having to work 10 years longer than they planned on?

    do you know how many folks have lost their jobs AND their 401K’s and are essentially having to start all over at the age of 40 or 50?”

    Weren’t you the one who said no one had the right to expect their property to increase in value?

    I feel sorry for people too – me included, but one thing you learn in the sailing business is reef early and reef often.

    Rule one is to have six months living expenses set aside. We’ve been in this for six months, about. If you have used up your 401k in six months, how did you figure you were going to retire on it?

    Things are still down from their peak, and if you are measuring that way, you are going to be unhappy. But we knew that was a bubble all along, didn’t we? We had to have expected it to return to something more like normal growth.

    So If you are in your fifties now you would have had to start investing in 1980. If you measure up from there and establish a trendline from then, we ar not too far below that trendline now. We are about here we might have expected to be back in 1980.

    The second thing you learn in the sailing business is that conditions are what they are, not what you would like them to be or what they used to be. Harsh as it sounds, you do not get the right to avoid change.

    We would have expected self preservation to be enough incentive for the banks to protect themselves from risk: reef early as it were. But almost none of us acted any differently.

    We (almost all) sailed drunkenly into the perfect storm with all sails set. Most of us did no better at self preservation tan the banks did.

    The third thing you learn in the sailing business is that the best bilge pump in the world is a scared man with a bucket.

    We still have the same number of houses and cars as we had before. We still have the same number of people who want things. The prices may change but it is all a big system that will sort itself out. Maybe not the way we’d like, but we don’t often get to pick the weather, either.

    RH

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “This was NEVER about affordable housing in the first place.”

    You were the one that brought up affordable housing as proffers, and then jumped to the housing crisis. what are we talking about now?

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “well I gave you an opportunity to look at my localities methodology and fiscal analysis and I never heard back whether it was good, bad or indifferent nor whether other communities that you could demonstrate were themselves …good, bad or indifferent…”

    I haven’t had time to look at it completely yet, but my fisrt impression is that it is neither a methodology nor a fiscal analysis. It appears to be little more than an excuse to come up with a decsion.

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Proffers are not about “ripping” off the “leeches”.”

    How many published antidevelopment tirades would you like to see?

    If this is really about paying for th e schools then all you need to do is put aout a price tag that covers it and allow any building that meets the price tag.

    That isn’t the case, and you know it. the real driver is that we don;t want nay neighbors and zoning gives us control over our (prospective) neighbors property.

    We think that be doing this we have given ourselves th eright to avoid change, which no one likes.

    You are not going to convince me withthat infrastructure only garbage. As far as I’m concerned it si a lie, or code for keep the heck out. I’ve heard too many honest people admit as much, “I moved here and now I intend to slam the door behind me.”

    youcan argue infrastructure all you want: I’ve seen the evidence, heard the bitterness, and recognized the discrimination.

    RH

  43. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “Weren’t you the one who said no one had the right to expect their property to increase in value?”

    yes.. and that it was wrongheaded and just plain dumb to plan your finances on that assumption…

  44. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    “How many published antidevelopment tirades would you like to see?

    If this is really about paying for th e schools then all you need to do is put aout a price tag that covers it and allow any building that meets the price tag.”

    we do. It’s called a rezone. If you come up with the recommended proffer amount – you are probably going to get approval.

    “That isn’t the case, and you know it. the real driver is that we don;t want nay neighbors and zoning gives us control over our (prospective) neighbors property.”

    your perspective is ludicrous given the amount of growth that has occurred in NoVa and down where I live.

    We went from about 15K people to 115K in little more than a decade – which I suspect is on the same rate scale as most of NoVa …

    According to you.. anti-growth folks have stopped growth – but the reality all around you says otherwise.

    Your only response is along the lines of “well there would have been more growth and more affordable housing if the anti-growth folks hadn’t stopped it” (the essence of your last point).

    You also confuse zoning issue with anti-growth issues.

    A majority of people want land-use rules to protect themselves from those that would do stuff like park 10 cars on their property or put a swimming pool in the front yard or burn trash in a barrel in their back yard… those kinds of restrictions are pretty much supported by most folks.

    The folks you claim that use zoning laws to stop growth – like I said.. look around you guy… if that was their goal – they failed miserably at it…

    NoVa is chock-a-block with development…

    More development in NoVa would overwhelm the roads and schools…

    Loudoun County until the bubble broke was building 5 schools a year. that does not sound like the anti-growth folks had much success there either…

    About the only place that succeeded in stopping growth is your own county – which goes to show you that if people are serious about stopping it – they can indeed.

    But the rest of NoVa and the exurbs that surround it ?

    the “they stopped growth” argument is pretty silly…

  45. Tyler Craddock Avatar
    Tyler Craddock

    Hey, Larry. Send me that methodology. I’d love to have a look at it.

    T-

  46. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Tyler – I’m not having any luck at pulling it up right now.. but in the meantime.. take a look at the developed fiscal analysis and counter-proposal made in his recent proposal:

    http://tinyurl.com/pcb5pz

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I never said they stopped growth. And I never suggested that proffers would be succesful at doing that, either.

    My inititial argument was and still is that proffers for affordable housing is a lie: they do nothing to make housing more affordable. What proffers do is make less housing available and they make whatever housing is available, more expensive.

    Most of the other reasons usually put forward in favor of proffers are also lies.

    That is not to say that there are not also valid reasons for reasonable proffers, just that those are not the reasons usually promoted.

    The higher costs caused by proffers are part of the reason for the housing bust: they imposed housing costs that were not evident and not part of the house. The “value added” for all that infrastructure was not added to the house that paid for it, and when prices collapsed the part paid for infrastructure evaporated first.

    RH

  48. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’ve got some neighbors that park multiple vehicles on their property. Some of my neighbors trid to get something done about it but the county just shrugged its shoulders.

    I figure that just because I don’t like something, doesn’t make it my business.

    Nope, they haven’t succeeded in stopping growth in Fauquier, either, I think it was over 5% last year. What they are doing here is wealth transfer, same as what happens when you proffer “affordable housing”. But at least they are honest about it here: they are happy to tell you that the people who own farms pay so much tax it helps keep other people’s taxes low.

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “we do. It’s called a rezone. If you come up with the recommended proffer amount – you are probably going to get approval.”

    That is really big of you when the recommended proffer amount is so high there is no way to make a profit after it is done. The difference in cash proffer offered and cash proffered desired on the sample you sent was over $3million.

    RH

  50. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I’m using a GOOGLE site search as opposed to navigating on their site so I “think” I’m pulling up the current .. but not 100%:

    http://www.spotsylvania.va.us/emplibrary/LOSS_revised.pdf

    https://www.spotsylvania.va.us/emplibrary/Proffer_Policy_Guidelines.pdf

  51. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    “What proffers do is make less housing available and they make whatever housing is available, more expensive.”

    isn’t that like saying if you didn’t have to pay for the water and sewer hookup that the house would be much cheaper?

    proffers had ZIP to do with the housing bust – no more or less than charging for water/sewer hookups did…

    the bubble was nationwide – no matter whether or not proffers or impact fees were involved.

    the bubble happened because people were speculating in housing prices the same way that people speculate in the price of gold or kumquats…

    proffers and affordable housing.

    If you admit that there is such a thing as a “starter” version of a house – where it can be smaller and have less amenities then you’d agree that such a thing can exist.

    then the question is – is it possible for a local government to negotiate with a developer to provide a certain number of these “starter” units as part of a larger proposal for more expensive units.

    and the answer to that question is yes also.

    What you disagree with is not the fact that it can be done but that you don’t like the concept…

    that’s fine.. hate the concept but the concept itself is real and it does provide a less expensive unit to the buyer – thus it IS, in fact, more affordable.

    It does not cost the builder any more to build a downsized unit so he does not lose money on unless he sells it too cheaply.

    A local government could not and should not dictate the price of the units but they could ask that some of them in the same development be “down-scale” as opposed to “up-scale”.

    A local government asking for affordable units as part of proposal is not that different than a local government asking for a car garage to plant buffer plants to shield the view and noise…

    In fact, asking for plant buffers could make the cost higher and the affordable question does not make the cost higher.

    I think a local government does have a responsibility to address affordable housing.

    Virgina law requires localities Comp Plans to have an affordable housing element in the content in fact.

    there are a lot of ways of doing this in a comp plan.

    One way would be to designate certain development areas to have a certain percentage of affordable housing stock and then the county could work with developers in a number of different ways to work towards that goal.

    A local government does have the right and duty to guide the planning and development – the land-use in their county.

    Va law actually requires them to do so.

  52. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    "That is really big of you when the recommended proffer amount is so high there is no way to make a profit after it is done. "

    isn't this like saying that a developer can't make a profit if they charge too much for water & sewer?

    or a developer can't make a profit if the cost of roofing goes up?

    if that cost applies to all developers…and they all treat it as just another expense that adds to the price of the home – it does not take their profit away – it makes the price of housing go up.

    but saying that the answer to higher prices for housing is to force localities to stop charging for water & sewer or just saying the how much charged is "too much" no matter what the amount charged is?

    Have you ever noticed what happens to many private water & sewer systems? After a few years, the residents served by it are begging the government to take them over… why?

    because they are "charging too much" and the service is "unreliable".

    Isn't that a scream?

    The same government that people think is ripping them off is the one they want to take over their water & sewer systems.

  53. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…it makes the price of housing go up.”

    Which is exactly my argument fromthe get go. The REAL reason for froffers is that they ar good for the people who ar in a position to impose them: existing property owners who benefit at the expense of others by taking value out of other peoples property and other peoples labor.

    I rest may case, seeing as you now agree with me.

    Proffers do not make affordable housing. Sure, the builders that remain cand make a profit from whoever can afford the tarrifs: if there are any.

    RH

  54. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Have you ever noticed what happens to many private water & sewer systems? After a few years, the residents served by it are begging the government to take them over… why?

    because they are "charging too much" and the service is "unreliable"."

    Yet you don;t think the same thing will happen to private HOT lanes?

    The government is still responsible for the safety of private systems, the government can borrow money cheaper that private business, and amortize the bill over a longer period, and large government systems have the benefit of efficiency of size.

    That is why there are some things government should do and not private enterprise.

    RH

  55. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    A cheaper hous is not a “MORE Affordable” house, it is just cheaper. If you simply allow enough houses of high qualty to be built, they will be cheaper also, THEN you have more affordable housing.

    But if you require a handfull of cheaper houses to be buildt as a requirement for building other homes then you are either taking profit away from the builder or he is making up the difference from the toher homes. Either way the required “chepaer” homes are not more affordable – it is only that the costs have been redistributed.

    Your arguments go in circles because you refuse to take a systems view. You have to consider the costs for ALL the prime stkeholders, and probably the secondary stakeholders as well. sometimes even the tertiary stakeholders.

    Then add up all the profits and all the losses for ALL the stakeholders: then show me how those home suddenly became “more affodable”.

    You won’t be able to do it because all yu hae done is move money from one pocket to another. Nothing in the system became suddenly “more affordable”.

    It is a lie, a scam, and dishonest advertising for the county to promote afforable housing this way.

    RH

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Here is a concrete example of how we fail to use systems level thinking in government policy.

    We are now considering a cash for clunkers program to get people to trade n old gas guzzlers for nwer more efficient cars. The reason tis to reduce the up front capital expense (tie in to proffers for infrastructure).

    The (proposed) standards for upgrading an SUV (auto) are different from the standards for upgrading a truck.

    Why do you need to improve by 3.8 gallons per 100 miles in order to get the $4,500 voucher on a car, when you can improve by just 0.5 gallons per 100 miles in order to get a $3,500 voucher on a large truck? It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    Is it because we presume the SUV is a luxury bt we conced the truck might actually be out there doing something productive?

    RH

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Two weeks after a public backlash persuaded county commissioners to scale back a proposed fee break for struggling builders, schools and developers seem to be nearing a new compromise.

    Under the new proposal, schools would receive the full fees they’re entitled, but not until each new home is sold to its resident.”

    Clarke County Columbian.

    So much for paying for infrastructure “up front”.

    Notice that this was driven by “public backlash” meaning existing property owners.

    Forget the struggling builders, they are not part of our community.

    The market can be irrational longer than you (or the builders) can be solvent.

    RH

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “CHARLES TOWN, W.VA. — Jefferson County is building two new elementary schools and adding to a third.

    Thanks to impact fees on new houses, the schools won’t cost local taxpayers one dime. “

    This is obviously a lie. The truth is that some taxpayers will pay a lot more for these schools than others.

    RH

  59. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The fee for each new home is $13,070, of which $11,358 goes to the school board for new construction. The rest is divvied up between law enforcement, fire and EMS departments, and parks and recreation.”

    “In Clark County, school impact fees range from $1,112 per house in Vancouver school district to $8,290 in Battle Ground school district.”

    Now, why do you suppose it is that I claim thare is widespread disparity in how homes are charged for infrastructure? Why does one district cost 15 or 20 times as much as another district?

    Is their education that much better?

    RH

  60. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “It’s still uncertain whether the full fee would be included as part of a home’s closing costs, or whether some would still be charged when a building permit is issued.”

    Apparently other areas are struggling with the “all up front” concept, now that times are hard and construction workers are unemployed.

    RH

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    At this link you can watch John Stossel’s full 20/20 segment “How to Save Endangered Tigers: Kill Them?”

    http://abcnews.go.com/2020

    And you think my ideas about how to use market forces for environmental purposes are strange, absurd, and far out?

    RH

  62. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    "Which is exactly my argument fromthe get go. The REAL reason for froffers is that they ar good for the people who ar in a position to impose them: existing property owners who benefit at the expense of others by taking value out of other peoples property and other peoples labor."

    nope, not even close. If a new home needs water & sewer and it costs money to provide them – using your theory.. the existing property owners are "sticking" it to the new guys.

    "Proffers do not make affordable housing. "

    they can indeed if they result in housing whose price is less than other housing prices.

    On a particular lot, you could build a 400K McMansion OR you could build a 200K "affordable" home.

    who decides what goes on that lot?

    The builder of what is ultimately chosen to go on that lot will build what is specified for a price that allows him a profit.

    end of story.

  63. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    “Yet you don;t think the same thing will happen to private HOT lanes?”

    let’s keep apples to apples here..

    “The government is still responsible for the safety of private systems, the government can borrow money cheaper that private business, and amortize the bill over a longer period, and large government systems have the benefit of efficiency of size.”

    but aren’t you the one saying that government is interfering with developers right to build what they want?

    they can choose to do their own infrastructure or they can choose government-provided but the government gets to – negotiate the price and requirements since they are the ones paying.

    “That is why there are some things government should do and not private enterprise.”

    who says? There are, in fact, totally gated communities that provide ALL the infrastructure needed inside the boundaries.

    if that was the standard proposal from developers arguments about who provides and what a fair price is would go away.

    developers always have the option of doing their own infrastructure including water/sewer systems.

    what exactly ENTITLES developers to have counties borrow the money in the first place even if they get cheaper rates?

  64. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    ” cheaper hous is not a “MORE Affordable” house, it is just cheaper. If you simply allow enough houses of high qualty to be built, they will be cheaper also, THEN you have more affordable housing.”

    by your argument a builder would never build a less expensive home and that’s not true.

    builders will build what they can that will maximize their profits.

    but a locality has a legitimate role in ensuring that affordable housing stock is available.

    A 1500 square foot house will cost in the ballpark of 1/2 what a 3000 square foot home.

    In fact, many builders will quote you a per square foot price.

    so if you build a smaller house without a lot of add-on amenities it WILL be less expensive and if you size that house such that the total cost of it meets the threshold definition of “affordable” then you’re there.

    the amount of “profit” is left up to the builder. If he can built other stuff somewhere else and make more money, he should do it.

  65. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “Is it because we presume the SUV is a luxury bt we conced the truck might actually be out there doing something productive?”

    It’s an incentive with a particular goal that has consequences also.

    The government is saying in essence that in the longer run it saves them money if you get rid of an older car that pollutes.

    you can disagree with it but the bottom line is that (just like with proffers) that the government can legitimately do it – even if you vociferously disagree.

  66. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    “Under the new proposal, schools would receive the full fees they’re entitled, but not until each new home is sold to its resident.”

    Clarke County Columbian.

    So much for paying for infrastructure “up front”.

    who do you think goes and borrows the money to build the school so that it is there when the folks move into their home?

    Doesn’t the county – the “existing” folks do this?

    the money itself is “up front” in the sense that it is paid back within the first year or so which allows the county (the existing taxpayers) to pay back the bond quicker which saves them money also.

    To NOT have proffers would mean that the county (existing taxpayers) would have to all pay the bond back over a longer period of time – by enacting a tax increase.

    You can do this once every few years but you cannot do tax increases every year to pay for new schools for growth – without consequences.

    Most folks would go along with paying SOME of their taxes for a modest level of growth.. spread out gradually over the years.

    What they won’t do is pay for growth – no matter what the rate of growth is.

    If there is a high growth rate that requires building several new schools each year (like Loudoun was doing).. you’re not going to load all of that on existing taxpayers without election consequences.

  67. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    “Thanks to impact fees on new houses, the schools won’t cost local taxpayers one dime. “

    it will cost them. Each new school is occupied by new teachers and needs electricity,, water/sewer, buses with drivers, etc – and everyone has to pay those costs.

    In general.. it costs about 10-30K for a new seat for a student and then it costs 10K a year to keep him in school.

    So.. the new folks pay once and then everyone pays after that.

  68. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    “”In Clark County, school impact fees range from $1,112 per house in Vancouver school district to $8,290 in Battle Ground school district.”

    I’d have to see the article and look into why they are doing that but it may well be that one district is pretty much built out and houses one’s and twos and the other district is just starting to be developed and houses are being built a bunch at a time…

  69. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    “And you think my ideas about how to use market forces for environmental purposes are strange, absurd, and far out?”

    no.. your ideas have the potential to be innovative but if you want more satisfaction than personal – you’ll have to convince others .. and if you want change – you’ll have to convince a bunch of others…

    We can do away with proffers and we might if the GA study commission recommends so and the full GA and the Gov agree but I doubt seriously that any locality is going to raise taxes on existing landowners higher and higher depending on how high the growth rate goes –

    and not have election consequences…

    If you say you want a more fair process.. you have to propose one – that is PRACTICAL and can be implemented….and is acceptable to many….

    radical proposals don’t go very far – with good reason.

    basically if you want change.. you have to get others to agree with the changes…

    I’d like to see a BETTER way to do proffers/impact fees… to have them be better substantiated…

    but outlawing them is not the answer….IMHO

    also.. some folks would want HOME RULE for localities where they decide and others would want DILLON Rule where the State decides.

    If you want the state to decide then you’ve got a lot bigger job because you’re gonna have to convince a lot more folks.

  70. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “….it costs about 10-30K for a new seat for a student and then it costs 10K a year to keep him in school.”

    And that seat is going to be there for fifty years or more. Why should the first home that sends a child to school have to pay for 100% of that seat?

    For that matter, how are proffers reduced for say retirement communities and the like? What about communities like mine which were smaller, older homes, populated mainly by older people. Now a younger crowd is moving in and doubling or tripling the size of the homes – to make room for kids.

    When you say it costs 10 to 30k per new seat how are issues like those above included in the analysis for “suggested” proffers?

    RH

  71. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “..if you want more satisfaction than personal – you’ll have to convince others ..”

    It isn’t my bag, I’ve got other things to do.

    But, if people want the most bang for their environmental buck, or their proffer buck,they would do well to study those market based conservations systems that have worked.

    If they want to delude themselves that proffers are a good thing and save them money personally because it is a way to stick it to the other guy, that’s OK with me. It just makes my property more valuable along with theirs.

    What happens to segments of society or even society as a whole doesn’t matter in the least as long as my budget and the ecounty’s budget are protected.

    Right, EMR?

    RH

  72. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    schools might last 50 year but usually they need large infusions of money for operations, repairs and updating.

    Using your argument for water/sewer – if a home last fifty or 100 years.. is it "unfair" to charge them a hookup-fee?

    How about a subdivision road?

    If you have 50 homes in a subdivision doesn't the developer add the pro rata share cost to each of the 50 homes?

    How else would you pay for it?

    age-restricted homes get a huge break on the school proffer but they have to pay a small amount more for fire&rescue (to provide them with closer equipment/faster response times).

    Some age-restricted also get a bit of a break on transportation if they only have one parking spot per unit.

    I think more than a few folks – RH have looked into these issues so the things you are talking about are not exactly revelations…

    but if coming up with a "better way" is not "your bag" then quityerbellyaching

    I don't think anyone is trying to "stick it" to others but they're not going to pay for their water/sewer hookup or any other infrastructure that a new home needs.

    You might be shocked but most counties school proffers are set to be 10-20K "short" of actual….so the proffers are acknowledged not to be 100% to start with.

    the question we have locally – is – do you charge full proffers for homes that fall in the "affordable" range as a result of the builder agreeing to build them instead of more expensive units.

    In that situation – those houses will still have kids and the existing taxpayers will be picking up the school costs instead of the home purchasers.

    If later on.. those houses sell at a handsome profit – do they owe the county it's share of the profit?

  73. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    schools might last 50 year but “usually they need large infusions of money for operations, repairs and updating.

    Using your argument for water/sewer – if a home last fifty or 100 years.. is it “unfair” to charge them a hookup-fee?

    How about a subdivision road?”

    So you see my point. What is it we are buying here, and who owns it when we are done?

    A new seat costs $30,000 and we make some assumption about children per house and base “suggested” proffers on that.

    But what it means is that a new resident will pay full price – up front for a school seat taht will be occupied by a number of future children, over the decades. And he is going to pay that price whether or not he has children.

    At the same time we see counties favoring retirement communities because they are restricted from having children. At least until some geezer lands a trophy wife.

    Every home does not have children and neither does every home have water and sewer hookup. And the ones that don’t have water and sewer we don’t charge for.

    But the ones that do, we charge full price, up front, when part of that capital should be paid for by future owners of the home. Just as part of the cost of a school seat should be paid for by future owners of the home.

    But, at least with water and sewer, that service stays with the home, and you can legitimately pass the cost on when the home is sold. School service is a little more dicey. You could get charged for a fancy new school and then later get redistricted into the “cheap” school district, and whatch the value of your home plummet.

    Like I said, it is a question of what we are paying for and who owns it.

    —————————

    It isn’t a question of whther the home lasts 100 years, it is a question of whther the home is required to pay “up front” for infrastructure that lasts a hundred years.

    And you already handed away the argument about maintenance costs, because you previously claimed that existing residents were responsible for and paying for maintenance. By your own previous argument ALL residents are equally responsibel for operations repairs and upgrading. Why not just consider a new school as an extreme form of upgrading and concede the argument? Proffers are unfair.

    Part of my argument is that we never paid eneough to adequately cover either maintenance or capital improvement costs and the (relatively new) APF movement is desigend to a) stick those costs to newcomers, just as HOA are now charging initiation fees to make new members pay for old costs incurred; b) increase the value of existing homes by making new homes more expensive; c) decrease he likeliehood of development by effectively taing control of neighboring land without paying for it.

    ——————————

    If age restricted homes get a huge decrease on proffers, why not on operations and maintenance? How about if we give age discounts on HOT lanes, while we are at it?

    ——————————-

    “I don’t think anyone is trying to “stick it” to others “

    And I think they are: we have a fundamental disagreement here. But I have heard people say outright, in public meetings “I got here first and my intent is to slam the door behind me.” “It was so nice when we moved here,now we have to preserve our open space.”

    Sorry, you cannot convince me that people are not out to screw other people. It is human nature, there is too much evidence, and too much incentive (if you can get away with it).

    That is why it is governments business to PREVENT that kind of activity, and not to enable it.

    You are right, government has the power to do whatever it wants. now th equestion is why it would WANT to let some citizens screw over the others?

    ——————————–

    “….but if coming up with a “better way”…. “

    My better way is to set a growth rate you can live with and auction off the building permits. Get the most money you can and builders will pay for your proffers. Tell the existing homeowners “we will accept x% growth: it might happen next to you, get used to it.”

    —————————-

    You might be shocked but most counties school proffers are set to be 10-20K “short” of actual….

    So why are the amounts wildly different, even within counties, in some cases. Are some schools that much more gold plated than others?

    Anyway, schools are only one piece of the usual suggested proffers, admittedly the largest piece.

    —————————–

    “as a result of the builder agreeing to build them instead of more expensive units.”

    Agreeing? Did he get any choice? Why would he agree not to build the more expensive units, as log as he thought he could sell them? Because it is that or nothing.

    I have a choice of growing strawberries for $15,000 gross per acre of hay for $250 gross per acre. You think the county should be able to tell me I have to shut down my strawberry business and grow hay because there is a shortage of “affordable hay”? And if I don’t I’m not allowed to grow anything?

    Under those circumstancees, just like the builder, I would be forced to “agree”.

    —————————–

    If later on.. those houses sell at a handsome profit – do they owe the county it’s share of the profit?

    Only if the county is willing to invest in the homes to begin with. What you are telling me is that the homes have to pay 100% up front and then the county gets to claim a piece of the profits? Don’t they get some kind of a recordation fee or other sales tax that is based on price of a home as it is?

    ——————————

    Bottom line is that homes don;t pay taxes or proffers. That money comes out of SOMEONE’s income. NO ONE can afford to pay more than they make or sell what people cannot buy.

    That is why “proffers” and “real estate taxes” are a hoax and a lie.

    RH

    RH

  74. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray – your argument might work for impact fees that apply to all development, including development by right. I’m not agreeing with your point, but am acknowledging the logic flow.

    But proffers apply only in situations where a landowner or developer is asking to build more than what is permitted by law.

    Why should any Virginia city, county or town give permission to a landowner to build additional density that will result in a measurable strain on public facilities and obtain nothing in return? The choice is build to right or don’t build. If I own 10 acres, zoned for half acre lots, I can build 20 houses and not proffer anything. But why should I have the right to demand that I can build 100 housing units on the 10 acres without giving something in return?

    Why should everyone else in the community suffer a decline in their quality of life and probably higher taxes so that I can maximize my profits for free? I have a right to build 20 house — and no more. If I want the right to build more, I should be willing to pay a significant amount to the additional public facilities necessary to support the “more.”

    TMT

  75. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “”I got here first and my intent is to slam the door behind me.” “It was so nice when we moved here,now we have to preserve our open space.”

    people do say that but look around you man…. how successful has that sentiment been in NoVa or in every other exurban county but yours?

    your opinion does not match the obvious realities around our region.

  76. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    And I have said over and over that I have no problem with some level of proffers, in the case where the landownwer or develeoper is asking to build more than is permitted by law.

    Now consider my personal case. I own property tha has been downzoned on six separate occasions, without compenstion. If I now go and ask permission too build more than is approved by law, ahould I expect to pay proffers?

    I believe that when and how we got to the position that describes what is (currently) allowed by law is important. When Oregon passed a law which required payment for required reductions in land use, they went back 25 years, or as long as the land stayed in one family.

    TMT’s situaton and Larry’s situation are hugely different from mine, which only goes to show that the current system and current conventional wisdom is seriously broken.

    My other claim is that the methods used to calculate proffers are exaggerated and wrong, as pointed out in the conclusion from a paper, below. The rest of th epaper outlines a number os specific errors that are commonly made in creating COCS studies.

    This is just one example of many papers outlining how our current methods are wrong or could be improved.

    Again, I don’t have a problem with some proffers, but I have a problem with how they are “suggested” or managed. And I have a fundamental problem in that if money is the issue to growth, then lets make it the issue, set a price and move on. In point of fact money isn’t the issue: it is control of other people’s property – and THAT is the problem. The methods of control of other peoples proep[rty that we have created are assymetric and therefor unfair.

    ————————

    “While COCS (Cost of Community Services) studies may be helpful in moving local residents forward in thinking about the ramifications of alternative development strategies and subsequent land use patterns, the flaws to the approach greatly limits its ability to answer complex questions. COCS studies have created a “conventional wisdom” that is simply wrong.”

    1 This review draws on Timothy W. Kelsey, “The Fiscal Impacts of Alternative Land Uses: What Do Cost of community Service Studies Really Tell Us?”
    Journal of the Community Development Society. 27(1, 1996):78-89.

    Steve Deller, Associate Professor and Community Development Economist, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin – Madison/Extension.

    http://www.aae.wisc.edu/pubs/cenews/docs/ce268.txt

  77. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    who should pay for water/sewer for a house that lasts 50/100 years.

    Ray – the answer to that is the same answer to who should pay for the entire house…

    you don’t charge other people for the roof or garage or the water/sewer…

    the next owner of the house pays their share of it when they purchase the home….

    it’s called “value added”.

    if you live near to a fire house (that you paid proffers for) – then your insurance rates are going to be lower than the guy who bought a by-right lot out in the sticks.

    you say “we don’t charge for water/sewer”.

    well… Ray – WE DO CHARGE for water/sewer.

    If you have a drainfield you get charged for that drainfield..

    and if you have a water/sewer hookup – you pay for that also.

    and if both houses last 50-100 years, then the subsequent purchasers pay for their share of water/sewer/drainfield as embedded in the purchase price.

    If you don’t believe this – try to sell a house where the well is dry or the drainfield has failed and another has to be constructed.

    your arguments don’t hold water guy…

    the buyer should be the one who pays for the infrastructure that is needed to service a home.

    subsequent buyers will pay their share when they buy the house later on.

    You’d apparently have the guy who bought and paid for his own drainfield also pay for the water/sewer for the new subdivision down the road..

    if you have county-wide impact fees for any new house – APF – I support that but any new resident would still have to pay for their own water/sewer or equivalent – a well/septic.

    in no case would either of these folks be paying for the other guy.

  78. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Despite the flaws and limitations of COCS studies (see box, below), dozens of them have been conducted across the country to determine whether various land uses “pay their way.” Unfortunately, the results of these studies have often been used to justify growth controls, particularly on residential development:[53] Most COCS studies find that areas of residential development fail to generate sufficient tax revenues to cover the costs of providing them with public services.”

    http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=736

    RH

  79. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…how successful has that sentiment been in NoVa or in every other exurban county but yours?”

    The problem with this argument is that you cannot tell by how much has been built.

    In order to figure out how successfule this sentiment has been you would need to know how many people wnated to move to an area but couldn’t.

    I Imagine that a large percentage of exurban dwellers would like to move to Fairfax, at the same time Fairfax is working (however badly) to restrict development. My own Fairfax home would not be there, under current rules. I have to imagine that there were (are) plenty of other lot owners similar to me who got caught with their pants down and lost their opportunity to build.

    Otherwise, why bother with the new rule?

    The point isn’t how much got built, it is how much got turned down or was never requested.

    RH

  80. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: "Why should any Virginia city, county or town give permission to a landowner to build additional density that will result in a measurable strain on public facilities and obtain nothing in return?"

    why should any county or town give a landowner infrastructure that has to be paid for by other landowners to start with?

    When you buy a home in a subdivision – that road is built not by VDOT but instead a private company that has to be paid for labor and materials – up front.

    It's built to VDOT standards so that the maintenance of it can be turned over to VDOT.

    but where does the money come from to pay the contractor for the road?

    It's the same deal with water/sewer.

    you get a pipe built to your home.. by real workers… using real materials… so who pays them?

    Ray..thinks that charging them for these things if you call them "proffers" is "stealing".

    since when is "stealing" making folks pay for the infrastructure that they need?

    would it be "stealing" to charge them for their two-car garage or their granite countertops?

    if that's not stealing then why is charging them for the roads and water & sewer "stealing"?

  81. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Why should everyone else in the community suffer a decline in their quality of life and probably higher taxes so that I can maximize my profits for free?”

    I don’t think they should suffer a decline in their quality of life, subject to certain caveats.

    1) They need to be able to prve they have a decline and what the value is. As it stands now, all they have to do is go to a meeting and say “Too much traffic.”, while the developer has to come up with paid traffic studies, just so he can get teh opportunity to be told “No”. The current system is assymetric.

    2) There is an issue of time and ownership. Is it really THEIR quality of life, or is it that they have been enjoying a quality of life they never paid for? Are they enjoying a “quality of life” that exists only because their neighbors have not developed, yet?

    3) The complaint is that they are asking for more than by-right development, but there are plenty of complaints, even about by-right development. Conties can and do “suggest” lower densities and other agreements even for by-right development. Even by-right developments get turned down, and there is a pretty consistent demand to reduce by-right densities, as happened to me.

    —————————–

    Lets say a sewer system is operating at 80% capacity. You could add a number of homes at no additional expense. Say it is a hundred additional homes.

    But now the 101st home requires a whole new system, or it triggers requirements to meet new and higher standards for the old system.

    Is he responsible for that? Who paid for the first 80% of capacity?
    Who paid for the 20% excess capacity?

    You are going to try to tell me that everyone should pay or the new higher requirements, since they now apply to everbody. I can show you two local insances where that didn’t happen.

    It all comes back to EMR’s claim: “If everyone paid their own true costs….”

    Which is fine, but we don’t know hoaw to do that, because we do not have the right concepts of ownership, or the proper property rights which would let us do an accurate accounting.

    RH

  82. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “the next owner of the house pays their share of it when they purchase the home….”

    No he doesn’t. What are you thinking?

    Under your plan, the first owner pay ALL of the fee. All 100 years, up front. The argument is that operation and maintenance are included in the monthly costs, but we know better than that.

    The second owner pays the first owner the full amount, but he pays later, so he does not incur the cost of carrying the interest for a full 100 years. (If the first owner sold after 50 years, neither did he.)

    On the other hand, he paid for 100 years (to the first owner) but he only gets maybe 50 years, and then the sewer authority hits him up for higher fees to repair a system that hasn’t been maintained for 100 years.

    There isn’t any “value added” unless the first owner has some ownership rights. That is why we have seen home values fall faster and farther n communities that HAD big proffers or other restricitons in place: they created costs with no real value added.

    RH

  83. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You’d apparently have the guy who bought and paid for his own drainfield also pay for the water/sewer for the new subdivision down the road..”

    You are not listening. What I’m saying is tat we don’t have adquate tools in place to tell who is paying for what. Certain people (like yourself) are making clams they canot back up.

    Look at the examle zoning report you posted. it was turned down solely on a subjective basis.

    RH

  84. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Ray..thinks that charging them for these things if you call them “proffers” is “stealing”.”

    You are not listening. I think both parties have equal rights not to have their property damaged.

    If party A succeeds in causing B to pay MORE than the actual damage that A will incur, then A is stealing.

    Likewise if B gets away with paying less than the damage he will cause, then he is stealing.

    There is no reason why B should have the only burden of proof.

    Lets say that B spends a half million dollars getting all his plans and studies in place. Even though he has hired outside consultants, his data is still suspect. He goes through threquisite hearings and gets turned down.

    Now suppose the rule was that if you turn an applicant down, you have to pay half of his application expenses.

    I suspect this would result in a lot less burdensome application requirements, and a little bit sahrper scrutiny on what gets turned down.

    RH

  85. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    "Most COCS studies find that areas of residential development fail to generate sufficient tax revenues to cover the costs of providing them with public services."

    you've got a lot of stuff to comment on but I'm on the road until night but in the meantime.

    remember the cost is divided up into capital and operational.

    By definition residential will pay for itself .. the county cannot run a deficit and the people that pay are the ones who own property.. and they are taxed at the same rate – by law.

    when we say that commercial helps pay for residential – it's a ruse.

    if you buy something from commercial you pay a sales (and other) taxes that are used by the county to help offset what would be operational losses if they had to operate from residential alone.

    this is why most counties want "their share" or 30% commercial because if the adjacent counties have that commercial then they lose the sales tax.

    but none of the above has much of anything to do with proffers which are for the initial infrastructure that is needed for new homes.

    Ray thinks it is "too much" but he has yet to point to any jurisdiction – across the nation – that "get's it right" and charges what he thinks is appropriate.

    Instead, he yammers on and on about "stealing" and "unreasonable" and "extortion" without really showing examples that he does support and the data used to demonstrate that those that he supports are indeed correct and appropriate.

    Instead.. he swipes at all that charge proffers – with the caveat that he does not disagree with "some" proffers.

    Let's do this.

    Ray – you go find a place that does proffers/impact fees – in your opinion "correctly" as a model of what you think is fair.

    tell me for instance, which counties in Va do a good job on proffers and should be considered as the models for the counties that are "ripping off builders and developers".

    you don't even believe what water&sewer authorities charge.. you question outright why they charge so much without once saying what is a fair price to start with.

    so methinks you are truly opposed to the concept of proffers and impact fees to start with and that when you say that "some are okay".., it's essentially a non-specific mea culpa… rather than focusing on what is fair and reasonable

    Most water & sewer guy – for your info.. they take the total capital costs and then determine what the capacity/flow rate is for that cost and then they allocate it out on a pro-rata share basis…

    what is it about that process that is wrong or unfair?

    and why should anyone else other than those who are using that capacity pay?

  86. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “they take the total capital costs and then determine what the capacity/flow rate is for that cost and then they allocate it out on a pro-rata share basis…”

    But who pays for it up front?

  87. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    you pay up front the same way you pay for the other infrastructure for the house…

    if you want a water/sewer hookup that “works” – you pay them “up front” to get those pipes (that work) connected to your house – no?

    no “working” water/sewer = no occupancy permit.

    Kapishe?

    it’s the same deal if you want a granite countertop, furnace, etc.

    you call the guy.. you agree on the price.. and he installs it and you pay “up front”

    If you don’t have the money “up front”, then you get a loan…. so you can pay “up front”.

    some companies will let you stretch out payments over 90 days or 3 years… but when they do this.. it is really a loan… read the paperwork..the whole amount is due if you’re late.. AND they can put a mechanics lien on your property.

    but the point is.. if the county (or a private authority) is going to build a water treatment plant and piping to deliver the water – no contractor will build it without “up front” money that he will need to pay for materials and for labor.

    where do you think the money should come from to pay for materials and labor for water/sewer systems if not “up front” by the people who want the connection?

  88. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “you pay up front the same way you pay for the other infrastructure for the house…”

    You are deliberately missing the point.

    I build the house and I pay some money for capital costs to hook up.

    But what I hook up to has to already be there to hook up to. Who pays for that? That is the up-front cost.

    RH

  89. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    "who pays for that"

    we have a failure to communicate here…

    you pay…

    now if you're asking who paid to build it before people had to pay their pro-rata share per hookup – which is what I think you mean…

    then whoever built it originally had to get a loan or bonds on it.

    For instance, in Fairfax County, you'll find these folks:
    FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
    http://www.fcwa.org/

    and if you look here:

    http://www.fcwa.org/rates/Rate%20Schedule%202009.pdf

    you'll see that they charge $3950 for a hookup… to reimburse them pro-rata for the money they had to borrow to built the water plant to start with.

    and if you look here:

    http://www.fcwa.org/rates/rate%20comparison%202008.pdf

    you'll see a comparison of their rates for water usage (as opposed to hookup) and this pays for O&M.

    so when I say you pay "up front" I mean that when you get a hookup – you pay "up front" for your share of the capital expenses.. and then you pay monthly for your share of the O&M.

    make sense?

  90. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    My understanding is that in some cases, the authority will allow payment of the hookup fee spread out over months/years – with a finance charge sufficient to cover their costs of a slower repayment of their loan.

    But this is in essence what you do when you finance your new home and part of what you finance is the water/sewer hookup… you spread that out over 30 years (or whatever term you pick).

    and then you recover your cost when you sell… and the next person – gets the water/sewer as part of their purchase.

    It would work pretty much the same way if instead you had a house with well & septic – except when you buy both of them are pretty much "as-is" unless you want to pay to have them evaluated.. and then negotiate on that basis…

    but in a normal housing market..you'd be out of a house because there would be other competing buyers who would not let a potential future failure keep them from buying a house than they want.

    they'd just consider that aspect the same way they would a 10 year old roof or 20 year old heating system…

    I think a very strong argument exists for any buyer paying "up-front" for their water/sewer/well/septic and just about anything else connected to the house itself including it's driveway and the subdivision road that serves it.

    The debate gets more nebulous when the supporting infrastructure is "offsite" and may or may not be used by one homeowner more or less than another homeowner.

    For instance, how much is a firehouse that is 5 minutes away from your home worth as compared to one that is 20 minutes away?

    Would you should/could you pay "extra" (proffer or impact) fee to obtain a quicker response time ..and..of course.how much is that worth and who sets the price?

    and then.. if there are 1000 folks involved in the decision and they want it 900 to 100.. you lose.. and you have to pay also.

    this is not unlike a gated community..discussing when to re-pave the roads and how much it will cost.. and the decision process.. which the best you're going to get is one man – one vote.

    So you could have a system where these things are NOT provided to new homeowners but what you give them the option of agreeing with their neighbors to set up a service district.

    There are not unheard of. There are transportation, fire&rescue, and even water/sewer districts established by majority agreement by all the property owners within a specified boundary district.

  91. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    No.

    what makes sense is that neither A nor B should be charged excessively or absorb damage on account of actions of the other.

    There are a lot of claims aboutcosts imposed “by the new guys” which appear to be exaggerated or unsupported. As the professor says they are being used as anti-growth arguments. as long as I continue to hear people openly admit that their goal is to slam the door behind them then I assume that they mean to inflict unfair damages on someone else.

    We can do a lot better on analysing these claims, but you would rather argue meaninglessly than promote better analysis.

    Here is an example.

    “Mecklenburg Storm Water Services has proposed increasing the fee for most homeowners next fiscal year and shifting more of the burden to the largest homes. The smallest homes would see a slight decrease.

    Charlotte homeowners with more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces would see their annual fee increase from about $96 to more than $200. …

    City Councilman Michael Barnes said he has received e-mails from constituents concerned that the lawns and trees they take care of wouldn’t be factored into the new equation. “Bigger homes are typically on bigger lots with lawns,” he said. “There should be some accounting for that.”

    Charlotte and county officials say they don’t take the green spaces into account because it would take too long and too much money to tabulate and keep up with over time.”

    BS. If you can calculate the impervious space, how much harder is it to subtract that from lot size? Even assuming that lawn has a pretty high runoff factor, it isn’t 100%.

    Besides that, if you want to make a lot of enemies for the eenvironmental movement, just double their bills unfairly. Is the cost of managing stormwater in Charlotte really doubling? Or is there additional service area that the “new guys” should pay for?

    The only thing I am arguing for is equal treatment based on objective measures. Proffers are deliberately and demonstrably designed to provide the opposite.

    RH

  92. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " I say you pay "up front" I mean that when you get a hookup – you pay "up front" for your share of the capital expenses"

    I don't beleive that is what you meant at all when you said that schools, for example have to be there when the residents move in.

    What you are saying now contradicts your previous argument that it is the sudden capital expense from growth that is "too fast" which causes the problem.

    If it is a question of too fast, then lets define what tooo fast is: below that limit proffers should not be necessary.

    If it is a question of money, then set a price and allow whatever growth is willing to pay the price.

    But don't set up what amounts to a sham trial and then reject people based on subjective and unequal preparation costs.

    ——————————-

    "and then you pay monthly for your share of the O&M."

    Nice if it were true.

    But we know that the M part of maintenance has been underfunded for decades: thats why our infrastructure is falling apart, and it is one reason we cannot afford new. Like EMR says, no one is paying enough for the society we have to maintain. when you look around it is obvious. And it is just as obvious that you cannot collect enough money to solve decades of old problems by taxing "the new guys".

    O&M should contain some reasonable amount for capital improvements to accomodate new growth. Then you have proffers to accomodate sudden spikes that are above the planned level of growth.

    Come back and see me whn you have an argument that is conistent, reasonable, and factual.

    RH

  93. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    "What you are saying now contradicts your previous argument that it is the sudden capital expense from growth that is "too fast" which causes the problem.

    If it is a question of too fast, then lets define what tooo fast is: below that limit proffers should not be necessary."

    "too fast" is when you have to get so many loans that your credit rating is at risk…. and you have to raise taxes to keep up …

    when you charge proffers … impact fees… and water/sewer hookup fees..you still have to get the loan but you pay it off quickly..(with the proffers) and then you can borrow again..and as many times as you are capable of paying off those loans quickly (with proffers).

    O&M (operation and maintenance) are not capital ….

    capital builds the facility

    O&M maintains it….

    if not enough O&M is not collected and put aside so it's available when the system gets older and needs renovation… then you have to raise the rates to pay for it.

    The only way your scenario "works" is if they collect the money and then don't spend it ..and then raise rates anyhow…

    why would they do that?

    typically what happens.. when these systems get into trouble is that they don't charge enough for the hookup fees and they try to make it up with the O&M fees.. so the money is diverted to pay for the capital expenses and then there is none left for O&M.

    How these authorities conduct their finances directly affects their ability to borrow – both in terms of max amount but also interest rate.

    poorly operated authorities have a great deal of trouble borrowing the money they need for capital expansions..

    but Ray.. you mix all this stuff up.. when you're talking about impervious surfaces – you're talking about a stormwater authority.. which is different (in purpose) from a water/sewer authority which is different from a fire/rescue service district which is different from schools…

    and your standard pap is that all of them are out to screw people over.. by overcharging and doing unfair stuff..

    it's your typical …"the government is crooked" conspiracy theory… isn't it?

    I keep asking.. show me places that do this RIGHT in your opinion so that we CAN judge the one's that don't but you don't work like that do you?

    They're all evil and crooked and none of them do it right – correct?

    so when you say "some" proffers are okay and reasonable.. you can't define what you mean by "reasonable" nor can you show governments that "do it right"..

    so..they are all crooked and they all steal…??

  94. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    My position is that neither side has property rights that deserve protection more thaqn the other, just in case you have never heard that message.

    My observation and my experience is that, generally, and under current regulations the cards are stacked against anyone who wants something new and in favor of those who want the status quo (what they have got and you don't).

    That is WHY we have comp plans and (increasingly restrictive) zoning regulations. Originally these were to direct growth and avoid nuisance, but that purpose has long since been corrupted.

    It is also why we have people arguing agianst regulatory takings.

    I don't know the exact truth of the matter, but I do know there are ways to get closer to the truth, and closer to fair treatment for everyone.

    I can only assume that those who argue against such methods prefer a system that aids and abets stealing by whichever side has the most power at the moment.

    I don't think the government is crooked so much as I believe people push it to do crooked things: things they would never get away with on their own. And I believe that rules that make it illegal for the government to promote policies that do not protect minorities will make such behavior more difficult.

    We can find a better truth, but only if we agree to look.

    ———————————-

    I didn't mix that stuff up. It came right out of the moths of administrators of the stromwater authority. I don't have any stake in a decison made by officials in Michigan, but even I can see from here that it is wrong: some people are going to get financially screwed by this and the stormwater management officials essentially said "We don't care."

    My position is that such an official should be taken out to the woodshed. Either we really don't care, in which case we can all pay equally or we do care, in which case the discriminators should be fair, transparent, and predictable.

    It isn't that I get this stuff mixed up: it is that I start from a neutral position: no one gets "better" property rights than the next person. I have a consistent starting point and a consistent train of logic which leads me to one side or another based on what I can see.

    The errors I see in other authorities are the SAME KINDS OF ERRORS as shown by the stormwater authority, and probably driven by some special interests.

    ————————————————————————-

    "if not enough O&M is not collected and put aside so it's available when the system gets older and needs renovation… then you have to raise the rates to pay for it.

    The only way your scenario "works" is if they collect the money and then don't spend it ..and then raise rates anyhow…"
    You don't see the circular logic here? How can you collect enough O&M and put it aside unless you collect the money and then don;t spend it?
    You are arguing my point for me: that we do not and have not psid eneough and put it aside, and then we try to shift our collective, long term burden onto smaller groups of people in the short term. We can get away with this because of mob rule – we have more votes than them – and it results in much bigger per capita "Initiation" fees than otherwise justified. And then on top of this we "Pile on" with all kinds of other bad behavior like assymetric public hearings, delaying tactics, extraordinary new requirements, etc. etc.
    If sameone can show me that the truth is otherwise, I'm willing to change my tune.
    ——————————————-
    I don't think governemtn is crooked, I believe it is driven to do crooked things by a some special interests. I think we can write rules that prevent this by ensuring the rights of minoritues, for example. My ob servation is that the system is assymetric because we like it that way. If it was fair there would be no reason to play the game.

    RH

  95. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The other side is evil and must be kept out of power, therefore, I must retain power, even if it means compromising a bit, because if the other side takes power, that will be worse than any compromise I must make to keep them out of power.”

    In a nutshell, that is the problem we face: people who think like that. Why do we think the other side is worse? Because we are convinced they are trying to steal from us, that we will be worse off if they have control. Mdeaning we will b e better off, somehow, if we are in a position to steal from them.

    The only ethical position to take, then, must be the one in which you demand that government seek the best middle ground, all things considered.

    That’s a lot of things to consider, but you have to start somewhere.

    RH

  96. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    You still have not named any jurisdictions that have fair policies nor the ones who have the most unfair.

    Yours is a rant against any and all no matter how implemented because you disagree with the basic concept to start with.

    and won’t admit it.

  97. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    As far as I know there are no jurisdictions that have fair policies, and none that have a policy of even LOOKING for fair policies.

    My whole point is that we must first agree to look, and then agree on HOW to look.

    if that ever happens, the power of my arguments will be obvious. Like I say, I don’t make this stuff up. this is old hat, but there is no reason for government to adopt such policies as long as people like you think what we have is fair.

    RH

  98. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “people do say that but look around you man…. how successful has that sentiment been in NoVa or in every other exurban county but yours?

    your opinion does not match the obvious realities around our region.”

    Oh Really?

    Go look at the recent copy of Bay Journal, how Calert county downzoned their planned build out by 50%.

    And one of the benefits? Increased property values for existing residents. Right there in print.

    By the advocates. At least now they are being honest about it.

    RH

  99. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous


    BUSINESS WEEK — Tata, the Indian company that made worldwide headlines with its $2,000 Nano car, now plans to build 1,000 tiny apartments outside Mumbai that will sell for $7,800 to $13,400 each. The company plans to roll out low-cost projects outside other major cities.

    Tata’s housing division is targeting a segment of the market that was largely overlooked during the housing boom. India’s builders were concentrating on building shiny new high rises and mansions on golf courses. Builders were after profits, but they were also trying to justify their fast-accelerating land costs, especially in and around Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay) and other major cities.

    But some business consultants (most prominently, C.K. Prahalad) were arguing that companies would profit handsomely if they target the “bottom of the pyramid” where the bulk of consumers are. It looks like Tata is taking that advice.”

    Sound familiar?

    RH

Leave a Reply