How should we pay for growth?

[waltergropius]

here's an article on New Raleigh having to do with Impact Fees and the commission's vote yesterday

[ncwebguy]

I don't think the general assembly should pull a county's right to vote on a tranfer fee, regardless of it failing in 20 counties so far. Most of those referendums had no direction for the revenue, so of course they failed. If they showed those dollars would go to school construction or road improvments or anything specific and needed, it would have done better. Does anyone know why it failed in Orange County, other than the Home Builder's Association's "stop the home tax" campaign?

The sales tax option is also failing for the most part. It passed in one county and failed in several others, again because there was little to no description of where the generated revenue would go.

In Raleigh, I think the planning commission needs to be renamed since their only plan is to do what is best for the development lobby. A gradual increase to the impact fee? That would have been a good idea ten years ago, when the impact fee had not been changed for only 10 years at the time. Raleigh is behind in upgrading parks, roads, etc. already due to the planning commission approving everything that came before it, now they want to continue to place that burden on the existing tax base. Wow.

The lower imapct fees are a "deal" for *devlopers*, not home buyers. It is sad that a "planning" commission member is on the record bragging about it. Should we be thankful that Mr. Haq isn't calling for a reduction in impact fees due to a "bad" economy for the rest of the country? How much of a subsidy do developers need?

[bullcity76]

I don't think the general assembly should pull a county's right to vote on a tranfer fee, regardless of it failing in 20 counties so far. Most of those referendums had no direction for the revenue, so of course they failed. If they showed those dollars would go to school construction or road improvments or anything specific and needed, it would have done better. Does anyone know why it failed in Orange County, other than the Home Builder's Association's "stop the home tax" campaign?

The sales tax option is also failing for the most part. It passed in one county and failed in several others, again because there was little to no description of where the generated revenue would go.

[Jones_]

^Seriously....the difference between me say, probalby never having to pay for growth(transfer fee) versus having to pay for it every year(property taxes), is pretty much a no-brainer.....it borders on complete idiocy these people voting it down....

[ChiefJoJo]

Impact fees will go up tomorrow in Raleigh, set to take affect July 1. It's about time. The developers-can-do-no-wrong crowd should realize Raleigh's fees are lower than most or all of our neighboring towns, as was indicated in the story. We are a bargain indeed.

[Gard]

^^^

Yep. Its time for the developers to finally pony up some more cash and pay a little more of their share.

[Jones_]

They will whine because this is the only place they can bank such a great profit in the current housing climate....

[Gard]

Paul Allen is proposing raising water/sewer rates by 15% AND property taxes by 15%. David Cook also wants to raise the county property tax by 2.5%

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/rale...ry/1080008.html

[Subway Scoundrel]

Paul Allen is proposing raising water/sewer rates by 15% AND property taxes by 15%. David Cook also wants to raise the county property tax by 2.5%

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/rale...ry/1080008.html

[Jones_]

Like everything else prices are through the roof. The construction environment even with companies starving for work is a good 50% above what it was 5 years ago cost-wise. Yet we grow. The space the City uses is very cramped and the buildings aren't even next to each other. What exactly do you propose the City do? Relocate all of the City functions to the fringes like solid waste?

[tjoad]

Not so sure about the other fees along with the impact fee increase. This will be used against the current council and could change the face of the council in the next election. (which I am not sure if a bad thing).

When the planning commision suggests gradual increase and the CC says no, and then the city manager comes in with even more increases the very next/same day, it looks like money-gubbing and might be.

Many people will start to look at items in the plan and say cut that out of the plan. One such example are the 2 new city buildings downtown.

Sometimes I wish Russell Allen had a better feel for how some citizens see his actions along with other on the CC.

As one who usually supports bonds and city projects, yesterday's action made me think maybe we need 2 or 3 CC members to the right of Isley.

[Subway Scoundrel]

Like everything else prices are through the roof. The construction environment even with companies starving for work is a good 50% above what it was 5 years ago cost-wise. Yet we grow. The space the City uses is very cramped and the buildings aren't even next to each other. What exactly do you propose the City do? Relocate all of the City functions to the fringes like solid waste?

[ChiefJoJo]

^ Yet, despite all the complaining that the Art Pope's of the world will do about taxes rising too quickly, the City of Raleigh has one of the lowest tax rates in the state among major cities, and the 2nd lowest in the Triangle. What does that tell you? In keeping with the theme, Raleigh is a BARGAIN.

Subway, I don't buy your agument that there are so many people out there who resent these tax increases... are they popular? No, but I would contand that there are many more folks that live here (N. Ral, ITB) who have moved within the past 10 years from a much more pricey area in every sense (home prices, taxes, etc). We are also talking about a few extra dollars per month for the average property owner. The fact that Raleigh is a bargain is part of the reason people are moving here (along with climate, jobs, education, near mtns/beach, etc). Of course, we cannot just assume this will always be the case, so those people need to pay some of the share of growth, and we need to keep investing in infrastructure to catch up with the rapid pace of population growth around here. That means keeping DTR thriving, funding schools, parks & public/open spaces, transit, (a few) roads, etc. Bottom line is I generally think these increases are necessary from what I've seen of the major budget items, and I think that depite some jeers, if the case is made that these investments are needed, I think the people will support them.

[Gard]

^^^

I think that with the tax increase, they should get aside a percentage of it exclusively for the development of our mass transit. I think it could be used to tell people (and actually deliver on it) that the city intends to use x portion (I would like to see 5% or so) to beef up CAT(by far the easiest thing they can do for more immediate relief), help bolster TTA and develop new mass transit options.

[Jones_]

First, solid waste is moved to the fringes for another reason.

It is not me you have to convince but I can take a big guess to move city services outside the city will be suggested very loudly. Even my father, a long time progressive and a retired Government Executive has suggested the same thing.

I see where it was suggested that impact fees got the council elected. Maybe somewhat, but just wake up all the people who did not vote by letting them see just how much their taxes and other items went up. They will vote next time.

Again, I am not the person that people will have to convince. It is the people who I work with who rarely go downtown, could care less about a convention center, keep the economy going with high salaries and disposible income, live in nice homes and don't care about a $224M building downtown. They greatly outnumber the people who do care. The question is will they take time to vote when Art Pope or the likes gets them riled up.

Their point will be to cut costs which rings loud and clear in many people's ear, especially when they are having to do so themselves as food and gas prices go up. Even the most liberal person will have a hard time not suggesting a good look at cutting costs.

[ncwebguy]

Incumbent Tommy Craven represented the relatively conservative (residents there are more conservative than ITB/Durham/Orange county, but less conservative than Johnston and Mecklenburg Counties' citizens) NW Raleigh and lost last fall. "His" council raised taxes on the existing population to continue developers' subsidies, and paid the price at the voting booth. If he, Art Pope, or anyone else didn't get out the vote for him, who will? District A elected Mike Regan, who wanted to stop construction on the convention center as they were building it and fill in the hole and claimed the city was promoting homosexuality.

Raleigh was in "don't tax, don't spend" mode for decades and infrastructure, parks, and downtown suffered significantly as a result. What was spent went north of the beltline to supplement new construction, paid for by the existing tax base. Now that the Raleigh is running out of developable greenfields, it needs to look in, not out. Moving city services to a cheaper site out of downtown would be managing the city like a CEO, focused on making this quater's numbers while ignoring the long term costs involved. More importantly, it would put city government out of reach from people who rely on public transportation, but who cares about them, right? If they don't have a car, they shouldn't have a voice! I'm being sarcastic, but a lot of the quiet folks in big houses feel that way.

[Subway Scoundrel]

TBJ reporting another Bond proposal by Russell Allen for Road projects. Add this to the other items. (raise property values, raised tax rates, bonds for many items, higher utility fees, impact fees, etc)

I know 3 people on here don't agree with me but to some people, this looks like "piling on" by the city as approved Bond refs do raise taxes. What is the backlash ?

[Jones_]

TBJ reporting another Bond proposal by Russell Allen for Road projects. Add this to the other items. (raise property values, raised tax rates, bonds for many items, higher utility fees, impact fees, etc)

I know 3 people on here don't agree with me but to some people, this looks like "piling on" by the city as approved Bond refs do raise taxes. What is the backlash ?

[Gard]

Looks like Raleigh may have some difficulty getting the tax increases through, as they have apparently caused an uproar as dozens of people showed up at a hearing at city hall to oppose the property tax increase and suggesting that the city "trim the fat" instead:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/story/1095594.html

[Jones_]

Looks like Raleigh may have some difficulty getting the tax increases through, as they have apparently caused an uproar as dozens of people showed up at a hearing at city hall to oppose the property tax increase and suggesting that the city "trim the fat" instead:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/story/1095594.html

[Subway Scoundrel]

Bonds don't raise taxes unless thats simply how the municipality opts to pay them off. As older bonds are paid off and as a community grows there is often money made available to finance [more] bonds, if other demands don't require the use of the newly available money. Once growth rates exceed a certain percentage the only way for infrastructure to keep up, without enacting fees on development, is to sell some muni-bonds.

[ChiefJoJo]

Here's a good example of how growth and infrastructure needs are stressing the property tax, as Chapel Hill approved an 11% tax increase. Now, if Orange had approved the transfer tax, it would take some of the burden off the property tax, and only a smaller % of homeowners (ones who sold property--and many of whom are influencing growth) would have paid a higher share of the cost of growth.

Of course some say growth pays for itself--which is bunk--and others say everyone should share equally in the burden. I think it should be shared, but that the burden should be spread through more than just the property tax so that the most vulnerable--low income residents and seniors on fixed incomes for example--would not be as adversely affected.

It will be interesting to see how Raleigh deals with it's budget issue. A 15% increase may seem like a lot, but Raleigh's tax rates are still a relative bargain among NC cities, and delaying a few of the infrastructure projects the city has identified might be just end up costing the city more in the long run through cost increases. We've been down the road of scraping by (the Fetzer/Coble era) before, and it only proved that you get what you pay for...

[c_harmons]

Here's a good example of how growth and infrastructure needs are stressing the property tax, as Chapel Hill approved an 11% tax increase. Now, if Orange had approved the transfer tax, it would take some of the burden off the property tax, and only a smaller % of homeowners (ones who sold property--and many of whom are influencing growth) would have paid a higher share of the cost of growth.

Of course some say growth pays for itself--which is bunk--and others say everyone should share equally in the burden. I think it should be shared, but that the burden should be spread through more than just the property tax so that the most vulnerable--low income residents and seniors on fixed incomes for example--would not be as adversely affected.

[ncwebguy]

How indeed... From the article:

"It's just part of the cost of growth," Foy has said. Tax rates are going up because it's such a desirable place to live, he said.

[Subway Scoundrel]

How in the #$@% do you add a URL site to this site ?