5 ms·

Shouldn’t all this be a responsibly of local government that will get influx of tax revenues?

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
Developers ask for tax breaks in the form of TIFs and cities oblige. When that happens you don't get the full revenue. A complicating factor is that you can charge more in nicer areas so developers are more willing to build there, but to get developers to build in bad areas with cheaper rents TIFs are almost required. It just so happens that those already poor areas probably need those property taxes worst of all, compounding already pernicious societal problems. Here: https://www.gazettextra.com/opinion/our_views/our-views-tif-deals-for-apartments-logical-next-step/article_10cdd879-a524-567a-a457-9d90e615a55b.html https://www.gazettextra.com/opinion/our_views/our-views-tif-... is some interesting reading.
kurthr 8y ago
That government is run by elected officials who receive a majority of their political contributions from developers... nobody has a lot of time to read (and "help write") the controlling rules (that they always want to update) which affect them as much as the developers do. City councils are run by developers. Also, the tax revenues often don't offset the ongoing cost of the development to the city (if they do the proper roads, sewers, power, trash, policing). They are a sunk cost at the time of development and then there's no money for maintenance (without more growth).
vkou 8y ago
Imagine you rented a shared, five-bedroom house, with 4 other roommates. Each of you pays 20% of the rent, and utilities. These are your only expenses. Now, imagine that I move into your house, demand that you knock down a wall, build a fifth bedroom, and a second bathroom. Construction will cost $100,000, and I will generously chip in my 16% of it. Do you see a problem, here? The only fair way to handle this, is to make me pay the full cost of construction. New construction must pay for 100% of the new infrastructure necessary to support it.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  The fifth bedroom and second bathroom primarily benefit the new resident. Better infrastructure, by contrast, benefits everyone. For instance, more trains = more frequent trains = less waiting at the train station. More bus routes means more potential destinations for you. If you never intend to use public transit no matter how robust it is, this won't apply. However, in this case, you should really consider the environmental impact of your actions.
  - vkou 8y ago
    All bathrooms in the house are communal, so it 'benefits' everyone. It takes the bathroom situation from overcapacity (6:1), to medium capacity (3:1). However, everyone was getting along just fine, with the bathroom at capacity - (5:1) The new bathroom only became necessary when another person moved in. > Better infrastructure, by contrast, benefits everyone. For various reasons, nobody was in a hurry to install a new bathroom before the sixth housemate showed up, and made the bathroom situation untenable. > If you never intend to use public transit no matter how robust it is, this won't apply. However, in this case, you should really consider the environmental impact of your actions. This doesn't just apply to transit. This also applies to sewage, roadways, city services like police, schooling, etc. When any of these systems are at capacity, and need a large capital expense to expand, it is unfair for existing residents to shoulder 95% of that financial burden. Adding more buses to a bus line is not a large capital expense. Adding more trains to an under-capacity train line is not a large capital expense. Building a new train line, because a neighbourhood with 5,000 residents, who were sufficiently served by surface streets, but now has 25,000 residents, who cannot be served by existing surface streets is.
    - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
      If all bathrooms were communal and wait times were a problem, I might agree to this theoretical deal! There's also a wide array of possible benefits to more people moving into your neighborhood, that don't really exist in a house. It's not just a larger tax base for public transit—there's also a greater potential for new restaurants, shops, etc to open, to serve the greater customer base. I suppose your new housemate could in fact be a master chef who is happy to share dinner most nights—but probably not. But more fundamentally, I don't think people should have the same level of control over their neighborhood as they do their houses. You don't own your neighborhood. Other people's interests—including those of future residents—should be considered.
AngryData 8y ago
You get less taxes per person if people don't own their own land and houses.

Developers ask for tax breaks in the form of TIFs and cities oblige. When that happens you don't get the full revenue. A complicating factor is that you can charge more in nicer areas so developers are more willing to build there, but to get developers to build in bad areas with cheaper rents TIFs are almost required. It just so happens that those already poor areas probably need those property taxes worst of all, compounding already pernicious societal problems. Here: https://www.gazettextra.com/opinion/our_views/our-views-tif-deals-for-apartments-logical-next-step/article_10cdd879-a524-567a-a457-9d90e615a55b.html https://www.gazettextra.com/opinion/our_views/our-views-tif-... is some interesting reading.

kurthr 8y ago

That government is run by elected officials who receive a majority of their political contributions from developers... nobody has a lot of time to read (and "help write") the controlling rules (that they always want to update) which affect them as much as the developers do. City councils are run by developers. Also, the tax revenues often don't offset the ongoing cost of the development to the city (if they do the proper roads, sewers, power, trash, policing). They are a sunk cost at the time of development and then there's no money for maintenance (without more growth).

vkou 8y ago

Imagine you rented a shared, five-bedroom house, with 4 other roommates. Each of you pays 20% of the rent, and utilities. These are your only expenses. Now, imagine that I move into your house, demand that you knock down a wall, build a fifth bedroom, and a second bathroom. Construction will cost $100,000, and I will generously chip in my 16% of it. Do you see a problem, here? The only fair way to handle this, is to make me pay the full cost of construction. New construction must pay for 100% of the new infrastructure necessary to support it.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago
The fifth bedroom and second bathroom primarily benefit the new resident. Better infrastructure, by contrast, benefits everyone. For instance, more trains = more frequent trains = less waiting at the train station. More bus routes means more potential destinations for you. If you never intend to use public transit no matter how robust it is, this won't apply. However, in this case, you should really consider the environmental impact of your actions.
- vkou 8y ago
  All bathrooms in the house are communal, so it 'benefits' everyone. It takes the bathroom situation from overcapacity (6:1), to medium capacity (3:1). However, everyone was getting along just fine, with the bathroom at capacity - (5:1) The new bathroom only became necessary when another person moved in. > Better infrastructure, by contrast, benefits everyone. For various reasons, nobody was in a hurry to install a new bathroom before the sixth housemate showed up, and made the bathroom situation untenable. > If you never intend to use public transit no matter how robust it is, this won't apply. However, in this case, you should really consider the environmental impact of your actions. This doesn't just apply to transit. This also applies to sewage, roadways, city services like police, schooling, etc. When any of these systems are at capacity, and need a large capital expense to expand, it is unfair for existing residents to shoulder 95% of that financial burden. Adding more buses to a bus line is not a large capital expense. Adding more trains to an under-capacity train line is not a large capital expense. Building a new train line, because a neighbourhood with 5,000 residents, who were sufficiently served by surface streets, but now has 25,000 residents, who cannot be served by existing surface streets is.
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    If all bathrooms were communal and wait times were a problem, I might agree to this theoretical deal! There's also a wide array of possible benefits to more people moving into your neighborhood, that don't really exist in a house. It's not just a larger tax base for public transit—there's also a greater potential for new restaurants, shops, etc to open, to serve the greater customer base. I suppose your new housemate could in fact be a master chef who is happy to share dinner most nights—but probably not. But more fundamentally, I don't think people should have the same level of control over their neighborhood as they do their houses. You don't own your neighborhood. Other people's interests—including those of future residents—should be considered.

AngryData 8y ago

You get less taxes per person if people don't own their own land and houses.