4 ms·

People averse to low income and brown people moving to their nice little town will just weaponize those permit costs to block developers. By putting those infra

by hodwik2 10y ago

People averse to low income and brown people moving to their nice little town will just weaponize those permit costs to block developers. By putting those infrastructure costs exclusively on the developer, you're basically taxing poverty, because those costs will all have to go on to the new poor residents. We already have an income tax system, it spreads the burden well. If the city needs more taxes to pay for infrastructure they should raise their local income taxes.

mountaineer22 10y ago
"By putting those infrastructure costs exclusively on the developer, you're basically taxing poverty, because those costs will all have to go on to the new poor residents." Can you explain that? I don't understand..you lost me.
- ec109685 10y ago
  Instead of the burden of paying for additional services to support additional housing being spread around to all residents, if you bake the cost into the permitting process, developers will be forced to charge more for the new housing to make up the cost.
  - mountaineer22 10y ago
    I guess we are not on the same page. So, how does this work? More specifically, what ensures the new development is "affordable"? Surely, the deciding factor is not the permit cost.
    - hodwik2 10y ago
      As the supply increases, and a greater proportion of demand is met, the cost will decrease. Remember this from Econ 101?
  - Retric 10y ago
    Or build smaller homes 40k @ 6% is only 200$ a month. Further people would be paying this anyway and new development directly competes with normal home sales. It may promote smaller homes, but that increases affordability.
    - mountaineer22 10y ago
      How do you ensure it sells for $40k and the person that buys it lives in it (not renting or sub-leasing for a profit)?
      - tamana 10y ago
        Doesn't matter. The point is to push the inventory mix toward smaller dwellings. Someone who want a big house won't buy 5 little ones.
techsupporter 10y ago
> If the city needs more taxes to pay for infrastructure they should raise their local income taxes. Difficulty: Not every locality is allowed to impose an income tax. Example: Seattle is having what one might charitably call an infrastructure problem due to its massive population growth. Washington State does not permit an income tax at any level and further imposes some rather stout limits on the amount of any other taxation. Follow-up: What now? Washington State voters--to change the law would need to pass at a state level, including in an inevitable referendum--have repeatedly turned down both an income tax and repealing tax limits. In fact, they do the exact opposite and vote in more draconian limits (which, because the drafters of the initiatives are usually either poorly-informed or paid initiative campaigners who want initiatives to keep going to the ballot, keep getting tossed by the state Supreme Court as of late but the earlier ones stand).

by hodwik2 10y ago

mountaineer22 10y ago

"By putting those infrastructure costs exclusively on the developer, you're basically taxing poverty, because those costs will all have to go on to the new poor residents." Can you explain that? I don't understand..you lost me.

ec109685 10y ago
Instead of the burden of paying for additional services to support additional housing being spread around to all residents, if you bake the cost into the permitting process, developers will be forced to charge more for the new housing to make up the cost.
- mountaineer22 10y ago
  I guess we are not on the same page. So, how does this work? More specifically, what ensures the new development is "affordable"? Surely, the deciding factor is not the permit cost.
  - hodwik2 10y ago
    As the supply increases, and a greater proportion of demand is met, the cost will decrease. Remember this from Econ 101?
- Retric 10y ago
  Or build smaller homes 40k @ 6% is only 200$ a month. Further people would be paying this anyway and new development directly competes with normal home sales. It may promote smaller homes, but that increases affordability.
  - mountaineer22 10y ago
    How do you ensure it sells for $40k and the person that buys it lives in it (not renting or sub-leasing for a profit)?
    - tamana 10y ago
      Doesn't matter. The point is to push the inventory mix toward smaller dwellings. Someone who want a big house won't buy 5 little ones.

techsupporter 10y ago

> If the city needs more taxes to pay for infrastructure they should raise their local income taxes. Difficulty: Not every locality is allowed to impose an income tax. Example: Seattle is having what one might charitably call an infrastructure problem due to its massive population growth. Washington State does not permit an income tax at any level and further imposes some rather stout limits on the amount of any other taxation. Follow-up: What now? Washington State voters--to change the law would need to pass at a state level, including in an inevitable referendum--have repeatedly turned down both an income tax and repealing tax limits. In fact, they do the exact opposite and vote in more draconian limits (which, because the drafters of the initiatives are usually either poorly-informed or paid initiative campaigners who want initiatives to keep going to the ballot, keep getting tossed by the state Supreme Court as of late but the earlier ones stand).