Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Smart Growth Lobby Blasts Watkins Bill

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

The Smart Growth lobby has reacted negatively to the impact-fee bill submitted by Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, and backed by the home builder’s lobby. In a word, they think it … (starts with an “s” and rhymes with “bucks.”)

SB768 would dismantle Virginia’s “proffer” system in which developers negotiate voluntary contributions to local infrastructure to offset the impact of their re-zonings, according to a press release distributed today under the name of five environmental and conservation groups. The bill would substitute a state-directed, capped, and technically complicated impact fee system, and increase home seller’s “grantor’s tax.”

“We see this bill as a tax increase on existing Virginia homeowners and taxpayers,” said Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. “It pushes even more of the costs of new development onto existing residents.”

At the same time, the conservationists say, the bill would short-change local governments. Said Chris Miller, president of the Piedmont Environmental Council: “Capped by the state, the fees would be far less than the current value of cash and in-kind proffers, and would be reduced by so many credits, that they would shrink to virtually nothing. Developers would also evade even these fees by developing in rural areas where impact fees cannot be imposed under this law.”

Builders in Northern Virginia would pay on average only $8,000 per new single-family house, $6,000 per townhouse, and $4,000 per multifamily unit. Elsewhere in the state, payments would be $5,000, $3,750, and $2,500. While some local governments might be tempted because these fees would apply to existing “by-right” zoning, the bill excludes subdivision plats and site plans that have been filed already.

The impact fees wouldn’t come close to covering the cost of new infrastructure, and it would lead to “routine” rejection of Smart Growth developments, Schwartz said.

So much for my insta-analysis in “Watkins Bill Would Revolutionize Impact Fees in Virginia” last Sunday. I overlooked the ludicrously low impact fee schedule in my first take. Still, there are attractive aspects to the bill, especially leveling the playing field between rezoned properties and by-right properties. I wonder if the bill might be salvageable by adjusting the impact fees higher to a number that the environmental lobby could live with.

Update: The Virginia Association of Counties boils down the bill to its major constituent parts. Much easier than reading the bill itself. Click here to read the summary.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    There isn’t any number the environmental lobby can live with. For them, the answer is no, not now, not ever.

    The proffer system is a disaster, and needs to be dismantled, even conservation minded members of the BOS have described it as bribery and extortion.

    The proposed system may still be wrong, but that doesn’t make the present system right.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray, I would strongly agree that cost-based fees that consider the true economic costs, offset by the additional tax revenues generated by the new construction, would be more fair than proffers.

    Prince William County has a pretty good formula. As land costs decrease with the slowdown, the target proffers decrease accordingly. Likewise, as labor or material costs increase, so do target proffers.

    Businesses like certainty. Those of us who live in Fairfax would just like a fair contribution to public facilities.

    TMT

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Prince William, as well as Florida and other areas also use what is nown as LOSS – Level of Service Standards – for roads, schools, fire/rescue, libraries, etc.

    Each one has a standard.

    When a development is proposed, part of it’s proposal is what measures will be taken to mitigate the impacts such that LOS does not degrade and instead stays at the designated standard.

    The problem has always been that mitigating the impacts at the project’s boundaries or in that neighborhood are easier to identify and specify than farther away.

    It’s easy for a BIG development or a gated development.

    You can count the cars and kids.. figure out how big the school needs to be.. ditto for the fire/rescue station, and perhaps a branch library.

    For instance – you can upgrade the roads and the entrances to the development itself.. but what can you do with the major arterial 2 miles away or the ramp at I-XX both of which are already maxed and very hard and very expensive to upgrade?

    How do you allocate part of that cost to each development that occurs?

    This is no unknown territory by the way as most water/sewer authorities have to do precisely the same planning and calculations.

    They have to know.. with some level of certainty how much to charge for a new hookup.

    If they charge too much.. they kill development.. if they charge too little .. they won’t have enough to expand the system when the time comes.

    This is essential issue with localities and proffers and what the homebuilders are advocating is just as dumb as some of the folks who want to mandate certain things with no idea of costs.

    For instance, using the homebuilders approach… they would mandate that no hookup fee could cost more than ‘X’ dollars.. no matter how much it really cost to actually provide the hookup.

    and what is the obvious result?

    well.. you don’t offer any more water/sewer hookups.. because the water/sewer authority either goes broke or they have to start raising the daily usage fees on existing users to make up the shortfall.

    So.. the more growth you have.. the higher the usage fees are…

    quess what… happens if the folks in charge are elected?

    This bill is going to end badly.

    VACO – the Virginia Association of Counties is going to pass the word that if you want to cause counties to adopt a “just say no to growth” policy – THIS is the perfect way to accomplish that goal.

    The homebuilders have that shotgun pointed at their own toes….

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…cost-based fees that consider the true economic costs, offset by the additional tax revenues generated by the new construction, would be more fair than proffers.”

    I don’t know what the formula is in PWC, but it sounds like it is on the riht track, in that it is constantly adjusted, according to a rule. If you know what the rule is, then you can make your own risk assessment of the rule turning for or against you.

    In the “public participation” model, its a crap shoot. To my thinking, the public can participate in making the rule, and then butt out.

    But, this is a good example of why you have to get it somewhere near right. Too high, and the new residents pay, to low and the existing residents pay. If a profferor fee is $1000 too high the new owner pays it all. If it is $1000 to low the mistake is divided among the 65,000 or so existing residents. If you have a lot of development (and therefore a lot of mistakes) it adds up.

    Which side is it “more fair” to make a mistake on? We like to think that big bad developer profit if the fees are too low. Actually, they add their profit onto the fee and pass it on to the buyers (and the land sellers).

    Fees that are too high actually increase the developers profits.

    ———————–

    “mitigating the impacts at the project’s boundaries or in that neighborhood are easier to identify and specify than farther away.”

    Well, that’s right. We have enormous congestion at the mixing bowl and at route 50/Vienna Metro because of impacts that start far away.

    I suggest that the impact is caused equally by those that choose to live far away AND by those that choose to locate their businesses where people will have to travel through the mixing bowl et. al.

    But that is only one LOS. You have also all the others you mentioned to consider, and they may be more or less localized.

    People and businesses have to go somewhere. We don’t have a big enough CRAY to figure out ALL of the externalities.

    If the ramp at I-XX both is already maxed out, and very hard and very expensive to upgrade then you take the money that you would have spent on the upgrade and use it to buy the property you don’t want developed.

    If you just say no to developement, then you have just put the money you would have spent in your pocket – at the expense of those you said no to.

    That sounds a lot like stealing.

    It is a question of what public amenity you think is more economical: a new overpass, or a bunch of open space paying low taxes.

    Groveton seems to think that you shoot yourself in the economic foot by pursuing the latter, but AFT, PEC and others say otherwise.

    I agree with Groveton, up to a point. At some level the benefits of the open space compete on an even level with more development and the infrastructure to support it. You can have Blue Plains with all the jobs, chemicals and power it takes to support it, or you can have a few thousand acres of grass.

    A thousand acres of grass is no more free than Blue Plains is.

    Unless you steal it.

    It sounds to me like Larry is saying, well gee, we didn’t have tha CRAY, we didn’t have the LOSS models, or the data to put in them. We screwed up, and we should have allowed for a lot more open space (and a lot more sprawl).

    But we didn’t. We didn’t pay for it then, and we are not going to pay for it now. We will just say no to development, and get what we need by default.

    Development can happen someplace else.

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Maybe the developers have this shotgun pointed at their feet, or maybe the anti-developers have already shot at their feet, and this bill is the result.

    We could be facing a state-wide version of the pedulum that happened in Loudoun.

    Far be it from me to decide which side is closer to right. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t understand where I’m coming from.

    For the past few years, housing has kept the economy afloat: it is one of the last manufactured products we fabricate here. Housing is the Fed’s whipping boy for the economy because it is highly sensitive to what the Fed controls: the availability and price of borrowed funds.

    When the Feds understand that their ability to control the economy has been usurped by a bunch of locals yelling “No!”, they are going to react.

    If it turns out, as Groveton suggests, that saying no seriously affects the economy, then we will see some changes. This is reflected in the PWC proffer calculations. One of the things we have to consider in the cost of proffers, is the cost of recession. I doubt if anyone thinks that causing a recession to save on taxes is a bright idea.

    And blaming this on the homebuilders is a losing strategy in the end. We are all in this together. We need a strategy that supports the homebuilders, their customers AND the existing residents.

    We all need to profit, and any plan that pit one against another is a loser.

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The impact fees wouldn’t come close to covering the cost of new infrastructure, and it would lead to “routine” rejection of Smart Growth developments, Schwartz said.”

    Doesn’t that say as much about smart growth as it does about impact fees?

    If smart growth was really smart, and if the impact fees are too small, then it would behoove managers to promote smart growth to minimize the cost differential over non smart growth.

    Peter really needs to bounce his spin off of someone else before he goes knee-jerk off half-cocked.

    I can recommend some associates, for a fee.

    RH

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I don’t think that open space has anything to do with development and infrastructure much less than a way to limit development is to use open space as a strategy.

    It all boils down to how the levels of service and tax rate can be kept at acceptable levels for existing residents as development proceeds.

    You claim to be an economist.

    what happens when you institute price controls that result in costs higher than reimbursements?

    this is really dumb legislation.

    It’s like telling a locality that they must provide water/sewer hookups at a capped price no matter how much it costs to put the system in.

    All this talk about property rights only applies to folks who want to develop their properties not the folks who live on property.

    So you tax the bejusus out of people who actually live on their property to enrich those property owners benefit from having infrastructure provided at less than market cost.

    It’s a subsidy – pure and simple and the advocates of this don’t make no bones about it.

    In other words – all folks who live on their property are to be forced by law to pay higher property taxes for infrastructure for development.

    This is what some folks think that “property rights” means…..it only really applies to some property owners not all of them.

  8. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Let me get this straight – NIMBYs AND developers hate this? Man, it has to be a good idea.

    But how can that be? How can NIMBYs and developers agree on something? Aren’t they natural enemies?

    Well…they are natural enemies. Natural enemies of the citizens of Virginia.

    The NIMBYs fear that they will lose their stranglehold on politics in places like Fauquier County. Standardized proffers will not allow them to “buy off” the local politicians to stop economic development.

    The developers fear that they will have to pay for the cost of their building in places like Fairfax and Loudoun County. Standardized proffers will prevent them from getting an ROI on the politicians they have already “bought off”. If the proffers are standardized then how will the Fairfax BoS unfairly provide benefits to the developers who fund their campaigns?

    Who is this guy Watkins? any chance he’d consider running for governor?

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    All of this boils down to one simple concept and that is whether or not a locality has the legal ability to zone land and to NOT agree to rezone proposals from developers.

    So.. if you force standard, one-size-fits-all proffers/impact fees on localities AND they retain their right to NOT rezone if they do not want to….

    … then the net result of this bill will be for many localities to simply not seriously consider rezones and/or to lay down so many administrative/technical requirements that just getting a project to be considered … pro-forma before it gets flushed is not worth it – money down the drain.

    The only way Watkins bill will “work” is if the right to turn down a rezone is taken away from localities and put in the State’s hands.

    Now, we ARE a Dillon-rule State so this is not totally out of the question but I predict that this is going to be one tough nut to crack if that is the ultimate intent of the homebuilders and Mr. Watkins.

    This is not one of those bills that is going to slip in the back door either.

    The environmental groups (judging from the blogs and emails) are sounding the alarms across the state and I strongly suspect that most elected are going to hear a lot from their constituents.

    For me, this is what makes January more “fun” than watching sweating jocks run up and down a court throwing elbows at each other.

    🙂

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I don’t think that open space has anything to do with development and infrastructure much less than a way to limit development is to use open space as a strategy.”

    I don’t see how you can separate them. If you limit development, by whatever means, the result is more open space than you might have had. That open space then benefits everyone who doesn’t own it.

    It may benefit them, too, but at least they pay for the privilege.

    ——————————-

    “whether or not a locality has the legal ability to zone land and to NOT agree to rezone proposals from developers.”:

    Nonsense, it’s about how much they can get for consent. How much they can get depends on the value of what is built, compared to the services it needs, how much they can get “up-front”, and how far behind they are on already needed infrastructure that current residents haven’t paid for.

    The government is in business to protect and enhance the lives of all of it’s people,not some at the (gross) expense of others. If the government can show that limiting development is better for all, then they shouldbe willing to share the benefits with those that bear the cost.

    Property rights cut both ways.

    RH

    RH

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …”how far behind they are on already needed infrastructure that current residents haven’t paid for.”

    but APF would take care of that but you are opposed to that are you not?

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    no. you’re confusing things again as usual.

    We could outlaw land preservation and not zoning and you’d still not be happy.

    It’s the ability, a constitutional and legal ability of a locality to designate land-use and zone that you disagree with – not land preservation.

    You just throw that in ..to further confuse things.

    “Saving” land, I actually agree.. unless it has some specific significance is questionable and even more so if the idea is to prevent growth…

    but.. we could agree to limit, even outlaw land preservation and you’d still not be happy with zoning.

    so .. admit it… up front..

    you just simple disagree with the concept of the government making such decisions…

    correct?

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “but APF would take care of that but you are opposed to that are you not?”

    As I understand it, APF just says you cannot hae new construction unless there are adequate faciites to support it. It says nothing about how, if, or when they might be provided.

    If the current facilites are 100% adequate for the development in place, THEN maybe pay as you go makes sense. As far as I can see, there is no such place. Therefore, either new development winds up taking up the slack that previous residents neer paid for, or else APF is just another way of saying no more development.

    “We could outlaw land preservation and not zoning and you’d still not be happy.”

    How could we do that? They are inextricable, as far as I can see. Zoning is frequently used as a means of land preservation, it’s only a question of degree. Land preservation through conservation easements at least makes SOME payment for what is gained.

    What I think is that government should set a price on development, then shut up and get out of the way. If and when APF does that, then I’ll support APF. I think that someone who wants to develop shoud be able to consult a procedure that tells him what he must do: not what he can’t do. The procedure should be transparent and predictable. If the price is too high, it won’t happen until the profits are there to suppport it.

    —————————-

    Look Larry, I’m philosophically in agreement with where you are coming from: I just think your arguments to support your position are weak, circular, self-serving, inconsistent, selfish, and designed to support a pre-conceived political agenda. Mostly, I think they are unclear, diversionary, wrong, incomplete, and assymetric.

    I don’t think conservation or the public welafare is well served by such arguments.

    You, and others, seem to think that because I object to bad arguments, that I’m in favor of those you argue against: that I’m aligned with homebuilders, developers, auto manufacurers, or that I am paid by them.

    It isn’t so.

    I’m in favor of whatever I think truly advances the public welfare, independent of whether it is Dem or Pub, conservative or liberal. Unfortunately, most groups are myopically more interested in promoting their own welfare or agenda, in being “right” or “winning” than they are in thinking clearly and spending wisely.

    When some group proposes a position, my first test is “Does it promote their enemies as much as themselves?” If not, it is a wealth transfer or a subsidy. Next question “Is it justified and temporary?”

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You would argee that if the community is already behind in infrastrucure, and already having problems paying the bills, that new construction shouldn’t have to pay for the catch-up, right?

    RH

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well first.. I don’t think preserving land is zoning. Zoning is about not having incompatible uses that cause conflict and it’s also about planning for the scope and scale of infrastructure that will be needed for the planned land-use.

    Land zoned for industrial, or residential or commercial has different infrastructure needs. You just cannot plop these different uses down wherever someone (usually the guy trying to make a buck) wants to put them.

    That’s why I say fess up.

    This is not about preserving land at all. It appears to me that this is really about the government deciding who can build what and where that you are opposed to

    You seem to think that each land owner should have exactly the same rights as other landowners and that means no zoning – correct?

    I’ll answer the APF question downstream of your answer to this.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I don’t think preserving land is zoning.”

    Me either, I never said that. But the reverse is almost always true: zoning does come down to preserving the land.

    Zoning was ORIGINALLY about reducing the backlog on the courts from nuisance suits over incompatible uses. I don’t have any problem with that original intent. I would never suggest that someone be allowed to act in gross violation of local standards.

    Putting industrial uses in residential areas is not what I have ever promoted.

    But, I can point you to any number of loacal area, (relatively large) farms that are surrounded by 20 and 50 acre lots, and some a lot smaller. Yet, as a result of long past history, these farms are prohibited from doing something very similar to their neighbors.

    The farm is now the incompatible use, and if they ever tried to raise pigs, they would find that out in a hurry.

    For some of these places the differnce is not millions, but tens of millions of dollars. Not just to the current owners, but to the tax base.

    Then there is the creeping crud phenomenon. Larger hosues plunked down in (already residential) neighborhoods.

    I have some farm service customers, who happen to work for the EPA. They are building what I could only call a “Green Mansion”. It has all the stuff we would like to see, but on a grand scale. Ground source heat pumps, solar power, composting toilets, you name it.

    But, the central feature is what they call the “port cochere”. What you and I might call the carport.

    It is totally gross. I think they ought to be allowed to build it.

    Because that is what the rules are. Had the rules been different, the previous owner might have made a lot more money selling to people with ordinary desires (even if less green).

    Now, the county allowed this fornication, and they required NO APF. Their driveway is bigger and better constructed and maintained than the county road it connects to. Their lawn tractor is bigger than my farm tractor. My tractor dealer was in absolute stitches, with tears rolling down his face when he told me the story.

    Why was this fornication allowed? Because it preserved the land. Because it was better than the next best option (according to some).

    ———————-

    How is that any different, from the guy who has two half acre lots and want to go to three 1/3 acre lots?

    Because the neighbors don’t like it.

    My customer mentioned above has neighbors, who have smaller lots than his, who object to the subdivision that allowed his lot.

    Where is the justice here?

    ————————-

    And yet, it is exactly this creeping crud that gets us into APF problems – eventually.

    In high growth areas, it gets us there quickly.

    —————————-

    I do not think there should be NO zoning. I do think that zoning has long since outreached its original razon and become a tool for social engineering far, far, beyond its original intent.

    How did this happen? Perversly, it happened because the courts were wise enough to understand that if they allowed equal access, they would be right back where they started: in the position that caused zoning.

    Therefore, for the most part, you cannot sue over zoning, unless your case is “ripe” meaning you ave exhausted all administrative options.

    The adminsitrative options can take several lifetimes, and cost several fortunes. It is an open ended gauntlet to run, with unestimatable costs. For many, it is a dead end.

    ————————-

    I think the process needs clarity and predictability. I think there is some price at which an owner ought to be able to override his neighbors objections. His neighbors ought to have a voice, but not a veto, on what the price is. And they should get a cut if the price is optioned.

    ———————–

    Unfortunately for all concerned, we are a long way from that.

    ———————–

    I’m not oppsed to the government saying you cannot build. I’m opposed to them saying you cannnot build, ever, at any cost.

    And then claiming it is for the public good.

    Without putting a time frame, a price, or a method of calculating the price – on the table, for public debate and vote.

    ————————

    You want to put APF on the ballot, with public debate on the range and method of calculation? With periodic reassessment? And if the price is paid the neighbors shut up and take their piece of the action?

    Then I’m your man.

    But, if the rule is you are zoned for 200 acres (or 2), when your neighbors are zoned for seven (or 0.5), because they were zoned thirty years ago, then I have a problem.

    Now look at Tysons. They can’t handle what they have, they want more, and they want us to pay for it.

    No, Thank You.

    Zoning has long since outlived its original object: to keep people out of the courts and promote compatible uses.

    Now it is an instrument of social engineering. It needs radical change. On this I agree with Jim Bacon. I do not agree the change should be assymetric.

    RH

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “You want to put APF on the ballot,”

    how about zoning also?

    One of the things I dislike about Virginia and that I like about Portland and other places that allow referenda is that there can be a legitimate public debate and a better public understanding of some of the issues.

    It took a few years for the citizens of Portland to understand the side of the road that you advocate for – but because they had the public dialog and subsequent referenda… they are if nothing else, appreciating that some things are not as black and white as they thought.

    But I think you’d lose on both APF and Zoning and here’s why.

    First.. APF is nothing else than an expectation that LOS levels are preserved/maintained as growth occurs.

    People are not opposed to growth. What they are opposed to is their kid sitting in a trailer at school or themselves having to go through 30 traffic signals when there used to be 5 or a 60 minute commute that used to be 30.

    That’s all that most people want – is some expectation that they can maintain their quality of life – the reason why they decided to live in a certain place.

    APF is just a philosophy that says “let’s slow down until we can catch up on the infrastructure and get back an acceptable level of service”.

    so.. if you put this to a vote – you’re going to lose -big time.

    It’s the same deal with zoning. When people buy a home, they don’t want the reason why they chose that location to be .. in their mind.. damaged by neighbors who .. for instance.. like to store junk cars on their property.. and sell parts off of them.

    From there.. it expands to whatever a majority of people in any area agree are “incompatible” uses.

    some places have NO zoning – even in Virginia but ALL places allow the imposition of zoning if that is what a majority of people want.

    There is no law and no constitutional right to “no zoning”.

    It is always allowed per the wishes of citizens.

    It’s an option that can be voted on.

    And zoning can be made less restricted or even done away with if a majority of folks agree.

    Harder to do in Virginia but out west – all you need is the required amount of signature to get that idea on a ballot.. and I’ll wager that those that support that idea .. also realize that it would go nowhere with a majority of voters either so we just don’t see it on the ballot…

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “there can be a legitimate public debate and a better public understanding of some of the issues.”

    You would think so.

    Unless you saw some of the garbage that passed for logic and argument, both for and against Measure 31, which was essentially about unrolling some zoning and setting a common start date for existing rights.

    “People are not opposed to growth. What they are opposed to is their kid sitting in a trailer at school or themselves having to go through 30 traffic signals when there used to be 5 or a 60 minute commute that used to be 30.”

    That sounds like the same thing, to me. No amount of APF will fix the kind of problem you just described. If they wanted to prevent that, the time to do it was before they bought their lots. They could have bought a lot more space, per person, and prevented all those extra lights.

    Having picked the low hanging fruit, they want their neighbors to pay for the ladders. Calling it APF and saying growth is OK as long as you pay an outrageous price, is the same as saying no.

    They got there first, and gotused to things being a certain way. But they knew all those other lots were ut there, waiting to be sold. They NEVER had a right to 5 lights and a 30 minute commute, but now they wish to claim it as one.

    It is a claim to a new property right, and they are taking it without paying for it. They didn’t pay for it when they bought their property, didn’t pay for it with thaxes they paid since. now they want the neighbors to pay for it.

    It is stealing, pure and simple. Call it APF if you like. As in Anything Public is Free.

    ————————

    “From there.. it expands to whatever a majority of people in any area agree are “incompatible” uses….. And zoning can be made less restricted or even done away with if a majority of folks agree.”

    Yep, it is a pendulum. Everyone has an incentive to regulate that mythical being who is incompatible, until they find out it is themselves.

    I don’t have any problem with any of this. I just think the process should be transparent, fair, and predictable.

    Right now it is none of those.

    RH

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Using your logic.. water/sewer authorities could not increase their hook-up rates because that would mean the previous users should have paid more to start with.

    I hate to tell you this but the real world does not work this way.

    If they find out that they mistakenly did not charge enough for infrastructure previously, they ARE going to fix the problem and they should.

    what you’re advocating is that if previous folks were not charged enough that we can NEVER fix it.

    using your logic.. we can’t raise gas taxes to cover road costs because that would mean that we did not charge enough to start with.

    so.. we just let the roads deteriorate even further.. because to attempt to reform the fees is … wrong…

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Using your logic.. water/sewer authorities could not increase their hook-up rates because that would mean the previous users should have paid more to start with.”

    I never said any such thing, or anything like that. But now that you mention it, there is an element of truth to it.

    Hook up rates are based on projected per capita capital costs. If the hook up rates go up, then either someone goofed on the estimate, or capital costs went up
    more than expected.

    That is different from simply needing more facilities because of increased heads.

    So, if that is the case it is unfair to slap ALL of the increased capital costs on the new residents. And the other thing that happens here is that old equipment gets replaced out of the capital budget. Some of it should be gained from existing residents. Since you can’t very well send them an additional hook up fee, you need some other way.

    ——-

    The gas tax situation is different, becuase it is not like the hook up fee – dedicated to capital equipment. It is a user fee and if the costs of maintenance goes up, all users pay more — not just the new users.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    My solution to all this is pretty simple. The county decides how many building permits it can afford to release, and it decides what areas it wishes to allow building to occur.

    Then they have a lottery, in which any property owner is allowed to enter (maybe for a small fee, as a revenue enhancer), and the winners get a voucher for a building permit.

    Now, the winner may not be in a designated building area, if he is he can make his building application and when all the other requirements are met, he gets his building permit.

    If he is not, he can buy the voucher from one of the out of area winners.

    If a lottery winner is opposed to growth, he does not have to sell the voucher: he can sit on it, and therby raise the cost to builders, but it is his own opportunity cost if he does so.

    If a lottery winner would like to grow, but cannot, because he is out of the growth allowed area, he can sell his voucher and at least get some benefit out of the area that is allowed to grow.

    This seems fair, all around, and the county still maintains control. A lottery winner opposed to growth gets the chance to do something about it (not sell).

    Since even exisitng homwowners are allowed to enter the lottery, they have a chance of defraying their tax bill with the income from sale of their voucher.

    Everyone should be happy wth this plan, except those who are really opposed to any growth at any price.

    RH

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m betting even you can see the 18-wheeler sized flaws in your own proposal…

    right?

    It appears that your idea is predicated on a belief that it’s “wrong” to not have everyone in the county to have an equal chance to “benefit” from developing property.

    But don’t developers comes from everywhere? If I were a developer, why would I not buy a token parcel so that he/she would also qualify?

    also.. would every owner get ONE lottery no matter how much they owned?

    you’re really trying to re-invent the whole system and your approach will end up with just as many flaws and unintended consequences, perhaps more.. perhaps a disaster.

    We already have a process to develop land and we already have a marketplace for folks who want to profit from developing land.

    No property owner is entitled purely because he is a property owner to develop land.

    why would you presume that they are or should be?

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: water/sewer analogy

    If you were going to do a Capital Facilities plan – how far into the future would you look in terms of inflation and how extensive would you assume the build-out water/sewer to eventually be?

    If you set up a plan with say a 20 year timeframe how would you determine how much to charge people for a hookup?

    Would you charge them what the infrastructure would cost TODAY or how much it would cost 20 years from now?

    If you expanded sewer to a new area and the cost of sewer pipe tripled from the last area that was sewered would you charge the folks who have already paid for their 20 year old sewer to help pay for the new folks triple-cost sewer?

    If a person buys a new house and it costs 3 times more than that same house did 20 years ago who has to pay that cost?

    If a new sewer line to that house cost 3 times what it did 20 years ago, who should pay that cost?

    If a new road or new school cost 3 times what a similar one did 20 years ago -who should pay the increased cost?

    You say that it was a screw up that caused the problem.

    It wasn’t a screw up.. it just simple financial realities…. that happen to everyone who buys something.

    You act like it has to be someone’s fault that inflation happens therefore increasing proffers to pay for adequate infrastructure is “wrong” and unfair and that the folks who got it “cheaper” got charged less than they should have.

    So I say again – verbatim:

    “Using your logic.. water/sewer authorities could not increase their hook-up rates because that would mean the previous users should have paid more to start with.”

    capishe?

    the operative phrase is “using YOUR logic” which I find not logical at all and simply not accepting of obvious realities.

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If I were a developer, why would I not buy a token parcel so that he/she would also qualify?”

    You could, but it would only qualify you for a shot at the lottery. It woould be cheaper to just by one of the vouchers already won. If you did, so what? You got something against developers plying by the rules?

    “would every owner get ONE lottery no matter how much they owned?”

    No. They don’t have to participate. If you choose not to enter, you can’t win. How many chances are alloted per size or value of the property would be up to the county – – to be negotiated as seems fair

    “your idea is predicated on a belief that it’s “wrong” to not have everyone in the county to have an equal chance to “benefit” from developing property.”

    I wouldn’t say it that way, but it’s close enough. What’s wrong with that? It seems to me that it is to the county’s benefit to develop where new infrastructure is most economical.

    That means that those who don’t happen to be in that location are effectively making a donation that saves the county money. That “donation” comes in the form of waiting until development is apporpriate for their property.

    This way the county gets to choose a) how much development b) where, c) give everybody an equal break on (only part of) the benefits of development, and d) offer those who oppose development a way to act on their beliefs.

    How does this hurt anyone?

    “your approach will end up with just as many flaws and unintended consequences”

    It’s just an outline, I agree it isn’t thought out, and I’m fully aware of the results of unintended consequences. But if the county chooses how many to allot, and where developement is allowed, how is that a disaster? Surely it is no worse than what we have now. You could still have proffers or impact fees, whatever.

    And remember, if there are a lot of citizens who don;t want development, they can just sit on their award. This might undermine the county’s plans for new revenue, but…

    “We already have a process to develop land and we already have a marketplace for folks who want to profit from developing land.”

    And you think what we have isn’t a disaster? We have aprocess to develop land and most people are entirely shut out of it. If there is an unintended consequence it might be that if they get a piece of the action they might not be so opposed. That must scare you to death, seeing as how your real interest seems to be utterly preventing development. Is there no idea that satisfies you?

    “No property owner is entitled purely because he is a property owner to develop land.”

    Actually, if he has “by right” lots that haven’t been taken away yet, and if he can meet the other requirements, he is entitled.

    In my scenario, the person who wins a lottery voucher would not develop the land, someone else would do that, on land that is already planned for development.

    “why would you presume that they are or should be?”

    Property owners are members of the county. The county controls the number and location of development, but the county has an obligation to see to the welfare of all of its citizens.

    In order to economize on infrastructure the county deliberately excludes some citizens from the process, and this is a way to include them.

    Or, consider zoning as a means of maintaining the environment. By law, no group is expected to bear a larger cost or enjoy a larger benefit from environmnetal processes than another. This is a way to even the score.

    I really don’t see why you have a problem with this, other than the general one that the details are not fully included.

    Yes, I think the system needs to be reinvented, the details are a matter for “public participation”. One of the rules of brainstorming is that you don’t dump on dumb ideas.

    Linus Pauling said the way to have good ideas is to have a lot of them.

    You got any?

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If you set up a plan with say a 20 year timeframe how would you determine how much to charge people for a hookup?

    Would you charge them what the infrastructure would cost TODAY or how much it would cost 20 years from now?”

    It’s a hard problem. I know, becuse that’s the kind of thing I do for a living – cost estimate projects that cost hundreds of millions and take decades to complete.

    Look at it this way, 60 years down the road the community has an asset that benefits all equally. They should have all paid for it equally. Properly done, it would have been written into the sewer “contract” with the county.

    First in owners would have been told what the entire plan is – as outlined in the comprehensive plan, which supposedly looks forward twenty years. They would have known that their costs would increase over the years so that they would pay a fair portion of the completed infrastructure.

    After 60 years, under your plan, the new owners would have paid most of the cost, and enjoyed the benefit for less time. And, when the oldest sections failed, they would have to pay for that, too.

    No, I don’t think the early owners should get a break because of bad planning.

    If I buy a house, it is on the open market, when I buy sewer, it isn’t. It is a shared resource and the price is mandated.

    It should be mandated fairly.

    Just like the environment, no one should be willing to claim a price he isn’t willing to pay, because we all own it.

    In New Zealand they have a concept we could learn a lot from. They call it the “Three E’s”

    Economy. Environment. Equality.

    You seem to have a problem with that last one.

    After 911 we suddenly discovered we had a problem with our security infrastructure, and it was going to cost a lot more. You think only the newcomers should pay for that?

    RH

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think you should pay for what it costs even if it cost more than it did before. Other folks are not responsible for your inflation costs anymore so than you are for theirs.

    People who have already paid should not have to pay again for others just because the price for infrastructure has increased.

    I don’t think proffers should pay to provide infrastructure than exceeds the LOS that existed prior to the development.

    In other words mitigate only the impact of that development to maintain the LOS at the same level it was before the development was built.

    If the LOS was deficient to start with then after a development fully mitigates the LOS will still be deficient – the same as it was and a legitimate issue to ALL citizens new and old of how/when to bring the LOS up to desired levels.

    so an example.

    If the road was LOS D before the development went it then all the development wold have to proffer is what it would take to maintain the road as LOS D but the development would not be allowed to let the road drop to LOS E.

    After the development goes in – if all the folks new and old want to pay extra to bring the road up to LOS C then everyone would pay their fair share.

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    When the system is completed, what is the value to you of sewer service to your neighbor if his breaks? The opposite? What is the value to you if yours breaks?

    Either way you would want it fixed. The value to every member of the community for working sewer is pretty much the same – no hipwaders and noseclips. Operational costs may vary with use, and we manage that.

    It is an entire system and the value accrues equally to all the users. There is a time value of money calculation in there, so that earlier users should not pay quite as much as the later, but the correct assesment is not to have the earliest users pay only their (temporal) costs. The basis is that the value to all is equall and the costs to all hould be equal.

    The error lies in you thinking that you are paying for infrastrucucture fo others.

    If they bought it, they paid for it and they owned it, that would be different. But then they could charge you for your use of their portion. If you think they should pay for it, then you must accept that they own it.

    The correct assessment is that everybody pays equally for infrastructure that everyone owns equally.

    If you had to rip the whole thing up and replace it, who would pay the costs? Everyone. Why should time of move-in make any difference?

    This is the problem with AFT Cost of community services assessments: they only look at one point in time.

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “In other words mitigate only the impact of that development to maintain the LOS at the same level it was before the development was built.”

    So, you think that even though they pay for new infrastructure, at a much higher inflated rate, and probably also with higher standards of copnstruction, etc. that you should be allowed to use this new expensive infrastructure, even though you paid the old cheap rate?

    And you don’t think they are subsidizing YOU?

  29. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    If you need water/sewer line extended to your home OR a well/septic out back, it is going to cost you more than it did in previous years.

    That’s not only a fact of life but those higher costs belong legitimately to you -the person that wants them.

    The fact that in one case you are sharing the costs does not change the basic realities and that is that NEW facilities cost more than OLD facilities.

    If build a new home in a subdivision that has it’s own water/sewer/well/septic you will be expected to the costs necessary to water/sewer your home.

    Your logic that somehow in a shared system that others should pay you the difference between what they paid in previous years and what you have to pay now is …illogical.

    Whether you have your own well/septic or you hook up to a private system or a public system no one owes you anything because your hookup price is higher than previous years.

    You pay the higher cost the same as you would for any other purchase that costs more than it used to.

    No one owes you a penny because they got it cheaper in years past.

    If a water plant has a 1000 unit capacity you owe 1/1000 as your cost.

    If that plant runs out of capacity and a new one has to be built then your fair share is still 1/1000 and yes it will cost more due to higher costs.. just the same as your driveway, your bathroom fixtures, etc all will cost more than they did before.

    You and everyone else on your street in that new subdivision will have to pay higher costs but yet you continue to use tortured logic to claim that somehow the folks who live in the older subdivisions “owe” you the difference between what they paid and what you have to pay.

Leave a Reply

Read More