3 ms·
These forced developments deals are meh. Our school district is dealing with planning for such state-mandated growth. The state-level representatives approve an
by RhysU 3y ago
These forced developments deals are meh. Our school district is dealing with planning for such state-mandated growth. The state-level representatives approve an influx of residents despite the local communities not wanting the growth. The developers want sweetheart deals. New residents want the new residences. Who loses? The actual property owners, who see their local tax dollars stretched thin by the growth (as the new residences are less expensive than the established ones), the congestion rise, and their votes diluted.
As an analogy, the rest of the US should not vote to reduce property prices in NYC at the expense of NYC taxpayers. It would be absurd. But that exactly is what the state-level policies achieve at the state-vs-community level.
- mullingitover 3y ago> New residents want the new residences. Who loses? The actual property owners, who see their local tax dollars stretched thin by the growth If we're talking about California, good news: the new homeowners will pay far more in taxes than the entrenched property owners under the Prop 13 system. Also, the single family residences are more of a burden on finances in terms of infrastructure maintenance costs than high-density residences.
- RhysU 3y agoTrue, but I am not talking about California. It's its own beast. Well-managed towns of single family homes are not an infrastructure burden. Sure, they're not as per capita efficient but recall people move to such towns, and pay taxes accordingly, in part for the density decrease.