3 ms·

This is a fascinating and shocking number: "Typical fees in San Francisco are $72,600 per home; in Sacramento, they’re $62,000. And for the six California mark

• twothamendment 10y ago
  I built a few homes in a new (didn't really exist in 1998) city in Utah. Fees were about $20,000. I thought that was high! Most of those fees went to the infrastructure that was put it so people had a lot to build on. Getting water power and gas out there isn't cheap and the city owned the power, water and gas utilities - so they had to pay the bonds with something. Since then I built in the middle of nowhere - no city, no inspections (except electrical) and it costs about $20,000 to get water (a well and equipment) and power. Anything much more than that and it seems like it is well beyond recovering the costs.
  • gsnedders 10y ago
    There's varying levels, though, when it comes to infrastructure—at an extreme end, you might need to expand the road network to deal with increased traffic, and if that's building a new, parallel road, or doubling an existing one, that can get pricy fast. Of course, this is unlikely to affect anyone building a single property, but at least here if you're a developer building a large number of homes you can be expected to make a contribution towards to the cost of the infrastructure associated with the development.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]