The Choice is between higher property taxes... [Archive]

StanN

10-01-2004, 12:00 PM

.....and School Impact Fees. The public won't support a property tax hike or a big move to year round schools. It costs at least $15,000 per new school seat. Wake gets 22% of NC's population growth due to migration - in addition to growth of existing population. Growth is good for jobs and the economy if its quality growth, i.e. infrastructure keeps up with the growth. Schools are not keeping up with the growth. Either the County Commissioners must: delay or defer everything in their budget unrelated to safety or security - very difficult to obtain agreement, or raise property taxes...or raise the funds from some other source.

Durham County has passed a school impact fee ordinance despite the opposition of the development community. Orange and Chatham County already levy school impact fees. Here is a link to a slide show presenting Durham's point of view. http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/cmgr/SIF/index_frame.htm

Numerous other counties including Franklin, Granville, Meclenburg and six adjoining countiesare considering impact fees. Here is a link to the Charlotte Observer summarizing the situation there. http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/classifieds/real_estate/8663492.htm

Look at he links and ask why not Wake County???...stan

Brent

10-01-2004, 04:09 PM

Why not indeed?

Anonymous

10-01-2004, 10:46 PM

Franklin and Granville county commissioners have gone on record as supporting school impact fees. Add that to Durham, Orange and Chatham. You almost have a regional movement - with Wake and Johnson the holdouts...Why not? And ask why thr NC Homebuilders are anti publically supported election campaigns. Can't imagine why...hmmm.

stan

johnb

10-03-2004, 08:52 PM

Maybe because they too are against Welfare for Politicians.

"Publically supported" campaigns are as offensive as forced "donations" to a religion.

It offends me politically, religiously, and civically that money could be stolen from my wallet, against my will, and used to fund a politician whose views I find obnoxious, hateful, and possibly even treasonous. Cary tried that and lost Stan, it is totalitarian to attempt to force people to fund political speech they find odious.

*IF* it were passed into law and upheld by the Courts I personally would join in creating the most offensive political party and demand tax monies just to parody the system and destroy it. Imagine the CommieNaziKlan Party running candidates for Cary City Council, paid for by the taxpayers, on a platform of seizing all private property in the city, deporting all religious and ethnic miniorties from the city limits, and calling for the repeal of the Bill of Rights. The only value to such a party and campaign would be to illustrate the foul intent of forced political contributions. Donate money to whatever candidates you want Stan, but don't you dare demand I pay for YOUR candidates and your partisan beliefs. That is as obscene as some political jurisdiction forcing you to subsidize Christian or Muslim houses of worship. There is simply no ethical justification for that proposal.

Wuptdo

10-04-2004, 11:02 AM

Brent

10-04-2004, 11:52 AM

Such a message might also encourage people to ask their district representatives on Council and their county commissioners (in addition to development interests), and I would not be surprised to see such campaign messages in the not-too-distant future.

Mark

10-04-2004, 11:54 AM

That is as obscene as some political jurisdiction forcing you to subsidize Christian or Muslim houses of worship.

Except that we do.

johnb

10-04-2004, 02:40 PM

Actually, no we don't.

Tax exempt status is not granted to houses of worship because they are houses of worship, per se, it is done because they are non-profit institutions. Non-profits need not be religious, but religious institutions that are non-profit must be given the same rights as non or ir-religious non-profits.

It is not the religious nature of the organization that is significant, it is the status as a non-profit that is significant. The two are distinct.

Anonymous

10-04-2004, 09:49 PM

John,

The alternative to public support for election campaigns is special interest support of election campaigns. And a high % of the time the candidate with the most money behind them wins the contest.

The result - elected officials beholden to special interests. Many competent candidates who refuse to run because they don't like the idea of running around raising money.

It may be that my tax dollars will go to someone whose beliefs I despise. But I rather pay that price rather than the corrupt system we have today.

Ordinary citizens have more to gain than to lose from publically supported election campaigns. The special interests over time would lose their stranglehold on the decision making process. Thats why they are against the idea. Take away the advantage of their money and they can't compete for votes.

stan

Mark

10-04-2004, 10:10 PM

As a Libertarian John I'd expect for you not to care why the subsidy existed, but that it did at all.

I heard someone from the John Locke society on NPR protesting Americorps funding and members serving with organizations that do any type of advocacy, despite the fact that the Americorps weren't serving in that capacity. The argument, which makes sense, is that by not paying that person, it frees up funds to support the other activities of the oganization, like advocacy. The advocacy could then run counter to the interest of perhaps a majority of citizens, the tax dollars of which they'd expect to be spent for their benefit.

Essentially it's opportunity cost in reverse. By freeing any group from a tax burden you're encouraging whatever else they spend money on. Libertarians, by and large, tend to feel that government, and taxpayer, intervention is only warranted to correct market failures, where a need clearly exists that the market cannot or will not meet it. For some things, Americorps in the one example, tax exempt status in the other, make sense in those terms. Habitat for Humanity fulfills a function that the market cannot meet. Lost tax dollars essentially support a housing subsidy for lower middle income families who would otherwise be priced out of safe housing. But is the market really failing to meet the need of prosyletizing, or the formation of church groups? I wonder? Is any particular religion or religious church a public good? Is religion in general? If churches get revenue from its members should they also get what, some would argue, are the tax dollars of those same people again and many more from those that may disagree with them or, as I'd put it, from the pool of funds that exist to further to public good.

It's a much broader debate than what I've outlined here. At times I tend to be libertarian about this issue. Some people might find supporting Habitat as odious as you might find supporting a radical Islamic mosque that indoctrinates children into their lifestyle. Perhaps this question turns critically on the defenition of public good, and whether or not tax exempt groups have to serve it. It's a tough one for sure. I am concerned about public funds being used to assist groups that don't appear to serve the greater interest, I just don't quite know how to go about defining that or demarking which groups run afoul.

johnb

10-05-2004, 12:47 PM

Mark,

Actually, I don't care too much about this because it is a small piece of the larger fight. My desire is to eliminate direct taxation period, at which point there is no reason to have a "tax exempt status" for non-profits since there would be no tax filing. Beyond that, I have no problem with local jurisdictions forcing non-profits to pay property taxes. *IF* the individuals affiliated with the organization care as much as they may claim, they'll pay. Otherwise, maybe that organization wasn't as necessary as the founder(s) claimed it was. Market pressure has a way of clearing the mind and air.

john

johnb

10-05-2004, 01:05 PM

The alternative to public support for election campaigns is special interest support of election campaigns. And a high % of the time the candidate with the most money behind them wins the contest.

Right. Well, see that doesn't mean a whole lot. Is that necessarily "bad"? Is the candidate with the lesser amount of campaign cash always smarter, more honest, or more in tune with the public will? Perhaps the candidate that attracts the most campaign cash does so because he or she happens to be those very things. Your complaint is not necessarily an indictment of anything Stan. Besides, the proposed solution really isn't going to "fix" that. That cash would go to 527 which the candidate doesn't control and that message would still get out. It's happening right now with the Presidential election. Kerry's allies at Moveon.org and the George Soros folks have proven that.

The result - elected officials beholden to special interests.

Right, who would that be the NFIB? The NRA? It always strikes me as funny how leftwing political agit/prop groups are "community based organizations" while rightwing groups (whether organized around business, cultural, political, and other such themes) are always "special interests". Small business owners, the middle class, gun owners, et al are "special interests" and not a part of the "working for a non-profit anarchist lesbian club". The status quo has a way of filtering out extremists and freaks. To wit, Howard Dean's implosion.

It may be that my tax dollars will go to someone whose beliefs I despise. But I rather pay that price rather than the corrupt system we have today.

Then you go and give money to the Aryan Nations, the Klan, Hamas and whoever Stan, but leave the rest of us out of it. I'll take the "corruption" of you not getting your way every election by disenfranchising and silencing mainstream America over the "purity" of compulsory funding obnoxious political organizations.

Ordinary citizens have more to gain than to lose from publically supported election campaigns.

We would gain the "right" to have our wallets stolen to subsidize politicians espousing ideas we find offensive. We would gain the "right" to be denied the right to free speech during election season. We would gain the "right" to see newspapers and other old media empowered to regain the pre-eminent position in the selection of election day results. Yes, much could be gained Stan.

The special interests over time would lose their stranglehold on the decision making process. Thats why they are against the idea. Take away the advantage of their money and they can't compete for votes.

Mainstream America would loose it's ability to influence elections. Public participation in the process would plummet even further. Money goes to political candidates who espouse a philosophy and policy ideas the owner of the money agrees with. Judging by the results in America that free market approach to politics has worked very well. This approach electorally marginalizes political extremists and coerces the parties to nominate candidates who stray only as far as they think the electorate will allow them to from the vast mainstream. Public financing would free candidates from having to worry about the toxicity of some of their beliefs. No, you are wrong Stan, this free market approach to ideas and politicians is good for America and good for the candidates in the long run.

Brent

10-11-2004, 05:42 PM

So, not only do we not have a Schools Impact Fee, and not only did Cary cave in and repeal the Schools APF, but now one of the handful of developments that had already committed to pay fees under the Schools APF when it was in force wants to renege.

Yes, this Thursday there will be a public hearing for a rezoning amendment for the Stonewater development. This is one of the developments that, when the Schools APF was repealed, was explicitly noted as still being subject to the agreement that was in force when it was approved, when the Schools APF was still in force (this applies to several other developments, too, including larger ones such as Cary Park & Amberly).

In the amendment request, which is apparently all about removing two roads from the plan, is a buried request to remove the obligation to pay the Schools Impact fees that were previously agreed to.

Pitiful.

StanN

10-12-2004, 09:51 AM

John,

The clear difference between our views is that you believe the ability to attract dollars is the test of who is "right".

I believe that ordinary citizens, voting for their representatives without the corrupting influence of dollars, will make wise decisions.

I don't trust big pharma and the AMA making decisions on my health care.
I don't trust big auto and oil companies making decsions about energy policy.
I don't trust the NRA and major arms manufactures making policy about weapons.
I don't trust giant corporations making decisions on tax policy.
I don't trust big developers, land owners and realtors making major decisions about land use policy (or even a whole host of minor ones as they do on Wake's planning Board).

I DO trust ordinary citizens, with all their diversity of views and opinions, to ultimately make better decisions about how their tax dollars should be spent, how their environment should be protected, how health care should be managed....etc. You don't.

Stan

StanN

10-12-2004, 10:03 AM

This board, with all of its diversity of opinion, illustrates the wisdom of ordinary citizens. Money doesn't matter here. The best ideas win. The advice coming from this board is a better guide to good government than all the crap that comes out of Jones St., Salisbury St. and other seats of government.

And I have more confidence of what comes out of Academy St., even though I often disagree, then what comes from the County or the State.

The reason is that I know those folks, warts and all, and they know me, warts and all. The others are far too remote from the people. My single vote and voice counts for something here. As does yours. I don't need big money to amplify my voice - nor do you. What a wonderful democratizing force this board is - for all its warts.

Stan

washere

10-12-2004, 10:39 AM

*******Future Campaign Commericial***********

Your Children's School has 36 children per classroom - why?
Ask a realtor;

That same classroom has only one teacher - why?
Ask a realtor;

Your Children's school no longer has a play field because there are 16 trailer's on it - why;
Ask a realtor;

Your water and sewer bill has doubled over that last 3 years - why?
Ask a realtor;

Your morning commute into RTP now averages about 1.5 hours - why?
Ask a realtor;

Your property taxes rise every year, but nothing seems to get better - why?
Ask a realtor!

Paid for by: Citizens against PondScum

***************Present*************

Wuptdo B-)

Well, I'm a Realtor and feel an overwhelming compulsion to stick-up for myself :lol: .

I whole-heartedly support school impact fees. Any Realtor with an ounce of sense would as well. If people love the area because the schools are so great (snicker), it seems only intuitive that we maintain that level of greatness (cough-cough). If the schools stink, buyers will go somewhere else. So if what has to happen to keep the schools performing at the level they are is to impose a school impact fee, that's what needs to be done.

Furthermore, if someone is buying a house, and they really can't swing the extra $1500 (or so, I think that's the number I've seen floating around), they either shouldn't be buying a house anyway, or need to find a less expensive one. And a responsible Realtor would tell them that.

I will say that my feelings about school impact fees have nothing to do with being a parent. My son is 16 months, my daughter will be 3 weeks tomorrow...and neither of them will have anything to do with the WCPSS.

My goodness. School for them is still a few years off, and I already know that I don't want anything to do with that mess. If that doesn't send a message to the school board, nothing will.

johnb

10-12-2004, 12:44 PM

Stan,

You don't get it.

I trust the people to make the right decision, by mass numbers of individuals making decisions in their own best interests. Collectively society moves forward when public consensus is formed in that fashion. It is the same principal one sees in the stock market.

I don't believe money attracts voters, I believe voters are attracted to and donate cash to the better ideas. What you folks want is for government to come in and artificially manipulate the marketplace of ideas by elevating kooks and crackpots to the level we generally reserve for serious candidates and serious ideas. I fail to see the wisdom of using tax dollars to subsidize the propogation of political ideas the majority of the population finds offensive. It would certainly help the Nation of Islam, Aryan Nations, the Larouche wing of the Donkeycrat Party, the John Birch Society, et al. We needn't arouse them from their intellectual and moral obscurity by handing them tax money to field political candidates.

I do trust the AMA speaking on medical issues where I don't trust the trial lawyers and their professional association.

I trust the NRA to speak on matters relating to gun safety and regulation where I don't trust anti-gun kooks of the far left whose agenda is to crimminalize gun ownership.

I do trust the NFIB to speak on matters relating to business regulation and taxation where I don't trust socialsts and the leftists who don't understand and actually hate capitalism. Yes that means I would trust Don Frantz' opinion on matters relating to business regulation long before I'd consider anything Mark said on the topic with any degree of seriousness.

The Donkeys are at a disadvantage when it comes to raising campaign cash for a reason, they have staked out positions huge segments of the electorate know are not in their particular best interests. It would be highly unethical and deeply offensive to then force these people to fund that political party. It would be no different that forcing them to fund a religious institution/organization they find reprehensible.

You and the other leftists need to get over this thought that your ideas are so wonderfully wholesome and superior to contrary ideas that they demand public funding, even if the public fails to see the wholesomeness and superiority of them. If your political agenda is as you think it is it shouldn't have any problem attracting supporters Stan. You folks have problems because most voters, again, vote and donate to politicians and causes that complement what those voters see as being in their best interests.

Brent

10-12-2004, 04:26 PM

Well, I'm a Realtor and feel an overwhelming compulsion to stick-up for myself :lol: .

I whole-heartedly support school impact fees. Any Realtor with an ounce of sense would as well. If people love the area because the schools are so great (snicker), it seems only intuitive that we maintain that level of greatness (cough-cough). If the schools stink, buyers will go somewhere else. So if what has to happen to keep the schools performing at the level they are is to impose a school impact fee, that's what needs to be done.

Furthermore, if someone is buying a house, and they really can't swing the extra $1500 (or so, I think that's the number I've seen floating around), they either shouldn't be buying a house anyway, or need to find a less expensive one. And a responsible Realtor would tell them that.

I will say that my feelings about school impact fees have nothing to do with being a parent. My son is 16 months, my daughter will be 3 weeks tomorrow...and neither of them will have anything to do with the WCPSS.

My goodness. School for them is still a few years off, and I already know that I don't want anything to do with that mess. If that doesn't send a message to the school board, nothing will.

Good post. Well said. Insightful. This would be a good letter to the editor or to the school board.

Wuptdo

10-12-2004, 05:04 PM

Brent wrote:

Good post. Well said. Insightful. This would be a good letter to the editor or to the school board.

Agreed.

However, if CharChar did submit at a LTE chances are, if she survives the lynching by the Board of Realtors, she would find herself unemployed. Realtors are much like jounalist, in that they eat there own when they smell blood (or is that just sharks).

CharChar, don't take it personnal, all Wake County builders, developers, suppliers, bankers, and realtors (anyone who profits at the expense of the rest of us) are all "pondscum" in my book. Impact Fees and transfer tax have always been stopped by your "Associations." While our children suffer in overcrowded schools, your group throws lavish parties in celebration of "Parade of Homes." (Getting on the soapbox here....)

Wuptdo

washere

10-12-2004, 05:53 PM

Well, it seems to me that if the choice is between a one-time school impact fee of $1500, and property tax increases (ad nauseum, ad infinitum), then the better choice is OVERWHELMINGLY the stinking impact fee.

Honestly, if Realtors are lobbying against the impact fees so they can make more money they haven't thought through the issue very well....whether they lose buyers b/c people can't/won't pay the extra fees, or they pay higher taxes b/c there is no impact fee, their botton-line is still affected.

Oh, and the parties I throw may be lavish, but atleast they're self-catered :lol: . My cooking speaks for itself.

Don

10-12-2004, 07:17 PM

CharChar, don't take it personnal, all Wake County builders, developers, suppliers, bankers, and realtors (anyone who profits at the expense of the rest of us) are all "pondscum" in my book. Impact Fees and transfer tax have always been stopped by your "Associations." While our children suffer in overcrowded schools, your group throws lavish parties in celebration of "Parade of Homes." (Getting on the soapbox here....)

Wuptdo

How are realtors really any different than any other entrepenuer or business owner? They provide a service to the community just like a plumber or mechanic does. (chose those careers on purpose ;-)) They organize just like many other businesses do - I myself am a member of NFIB, ASE, ASA, etc.. which are too "special interest" groups that represent our needs and concerns - much like the Board of Realtors does for them. None of us would be in business if their wasn't a demand for our services, and many of us live in the community we conduct business in.

Biggest difference I see is the realtors just might be a bit better at organizing than other special interest groups.

Also, during the elections - including this one - I have yet to hear of a realtor endorsing a candidate that believes we should open the floodgates of growth, stop building roads and charge no impact fees. During my interview with the board of realtors, they seemed most concerned about job creation, good schools, and low taxes.

Maybe it goes back to fiscal responsibility? If tax dollars were used where they were supposed be.........ah, nevermind, for a different thread. :wink:

johnb

10-12-2004, 07:45 PM

...loosing battle....

StanN

10-12-2004, 09:49 PM

char char,

My advice is don't write the letter.

Two reasons:

1. the legislators have heard this so often they will just ignore it.
2. You depend on the cooperation orf other realtors and I absolutely assure you that there are some who go nuts when they hear the words "impact fees".

Now if someone really wanted to do something serious about the subject - they would organize a march of hundreds or thousands to Jones St. From all over the state - including the six counties adjacent to Mecklenberg who want them. Organize this for early in the full term. Carry signs - make a big noise so it gets carried by the press.

Send out press releases in advance and afterwards to every major paper in the state. Present a petition with 10,000 names. Bring your kids with you. Visit the office of every legislator and leave your info. with them. Get the NCGA bill number which proposes a variety of alternatives to the property tax for all counties. Have a web site. Keep posting to it. Publicize every problem in funding school construction across the state. Hire Rono as a consultant. He might even do it for free.

Forgetabout Wake. Local bills require a unanimous vote of the county's reps. There are some in Wake who just so beholden to development interests that they will not budge. Go for the whole state - much better odds.

Now that might accomplish something.

Stan

washere

10-12-2004, 10:57 PM

Well, see, here's the thing:

I'm all about finding a cause, organizing the troops, and getting out the word. The problem is, like I said before, my babies are barely out of the womb, and I already detest the WCPSS. So I'm not exactly hot about wasting my time promoting their latest cause.

I could get behind really working hard to push the school impact fees, if I had some kind of guarentee that my property taxes wouldn't go up next year (again), or ever for the WCPSS.

If I'm gonna push for a school impact fee, I want to know that the people I'm paying it to are good fiscal stewards, are accountable to the appropriate "authorities", and are frugal where appropriate. And frankly, the school board seems like a big group of bozos to me (mind you, this is coming from the mother of a 16 month old and a 3 week old...I don't have anything to do with the WCPSS and I've already had enough just READING about it).

Somehow, I'm pretty well convinced that if WCPSS got their school impact fee, the next year they'd still be whining that they needed the commissioners to approve another property tax increase.

I guess ultimately, if an impact fee for the schools is the best way to handle the issue, then that's fine and that's what I support. Professionaly speaking, I think it's an outstanging proposal for handling the growth management issues that come with influxes of people to the area. Personally, I want to limit my contributions to the WCPSS as much as possible.

So while the $1500 school impact fee might make sense, it doesn't guarentee that all our property taxes won't get increased later for the schools, for the very things we were told the impact fee would cover.

Furthermore, if the WCPSS gets their fee, and continues to behave the way they have historically, all of our taxes will go up again anyway; at which point it doesn't make sense personally or professionally for me (or anybody for that matter) to support a school impact fee.

It does beg the question: Why hasn't the WCPSS (and other school systems, for that matter) lobbied for this themselves?

Now here's a cause I can get behind: getting rid of the "wild" cats!!! We tried to convince our neighbors to quit feeding the darn things, but they aren't terribly interested. I've heard that certain people catch and drown the cats...but I just can't bring myself to do that :wink: .

Wuptdo

10-13-2004, 12:39 AM

CharChar - thanks for joining the outgoing party here at CP.

For more good stuff on WCPSS please see below:

http://www.assignmentbychoice.org/

http://www.ncreportcard.com/src/

About the cats, I have one solution that can't be posted :twisted: . However, I believe if you call Cary Animal Control, they will look into the problem, and may leave traps. Don & Kelly are the local experts on Cary PD's policies and procedures. :wink: (The theme from S.W.A.T. is now playing in the background)

Oh, and Stan: that was a great post, and very much on the mark what the whole state has to do, cause it is a Statewide problem. Just image all the PAC money going directly into the schools instead of political campaigns. Now there is a redistrbution of wealth I can live with :D !

Wuptdo B-)

washere

10-13-2004, 08:31 AM

Just image all the PAC money going directly into the schools instead of political campaigns. Now there is a redistrbution of wealth I can live with :D !

Wuptdo B-)
Yep.

washere

10-13-2004, 09:50 AM

Oh, here's some insight into why the Board of Realtors always lobbies hard against impact fees:

One (or a reasonable number of) impact fees aren't going to hurt anything. Especially if the impact fee supports something (like area schools) that really stimulates home purchases and values in an area.

The problem is, once the first impact fee gets approved, how many do you think will follow??? The overwhelming fear is that something similar to a domino effect would happen, where large numbers of impact fees start getting approved.

So while $1500 for the local schools is a HIGHLY reasonable proposition (at the very least), and does not provide a significant barrier to home ownership (and again, if it does, the buyer's situation needs to be re-evaluated), multiple impact fees *could* absolutely prove to be a significant barrier to home ownership.

Ultimately, it's much easier to oppose impact fees in all forms than to make educated decisions on what is and is not warranted/appropriate on a case-by-case basis :roll: .

Wuptdo

10-13-2004, 11:38 AM

You made some interesting points CharChar. However, the bottom line is who is going to pay for local infrastructure and who profits from it. The Board of Realtors, Homebuilders Association, and other (pondscumers), all profit from growth. (I call this group the "developers" and they represent one of the "axis of evil" here in Wake Co. and N.C.) The old taxpayer and the "new" taxpayer therefore shoulder the burden of the new infrastructure (higher tax, bonds, degradation of services, over crowded schools). Meanwhile, all the "developer" people are living large on the Coast in 10-bedroom mansions (or least oceanfront Condos). Oh, and if these "developers" have children, they probably go to private schools; heaven forbid they would have to mix with unclean masses.

CharChar wrote:
The problem is, once the first impact fee gets approved, how many do you think will follow??? The overwhelming fear is that something similar to a domino effect would happen, where large numbers of impact fees start getting approved.

Maybe. However, as a businessman or homeowner, I would choose a one-time, up-front tax before higher annual property taxes anyday. It is called the "cost of doing business." One way or another, somebody has to pay taxes, and as a "established" homeowner, I would rather see new construction (sprawl) pay for itself via "impact fees" & "new transfer tax." A good example was Cary's APF. If the rest of the county would of adopted APF countywide, the problem of poor roads and school overcrowding would probably not be an issue. (Oh, on school overcrowding, e-mail your local school, or your school board rep, and ask this question. "Based on the 20th day numbers of WCPSS, how many "illegal aliens" are currently attending WCPSS?) :wink: :wink:

When it comes to real estate there are two main diving factors:

(1) Location, Location, and Tax Rate; and
(2) What a seller is willing to sell, what a buyer is willing to buy, and what the bank is willing to finance.

I digress. There are many problems in Wake County. In my opinion, the "developers/pondscum" are responsible for many. As much as the realtors think highly of themselves, the bottom line is, when the developers/homebuilders tell you to "dance," realtors ask "how fast?" To the developers/homebuilders, realtors are nothing more than pawns, licking the "plates of profit" after they are had their fill. $-) :@)

Read more about it:

http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/nelsonimpactfees.htm

CharChar, my advice is to be careful what you post here as a realtor. I enjoy the banter, but I know from past postings (and LTE's) that other realtors read what is going on over here. I knew this because one my more "outspoken" (being polite) neighbor/realtors gave me an earfill one night. She too was reading the "realtor" talking points back to me. :roll:
Unless, and I hope that you would tell us, that you are not a PR flak hired by the BOR to discourge "non-developered approved" discourse.

Wuptdo B-)

"Never trust a person who makes a living on commission." - Old Saying

Don

10-13-2004, 12:34 PM

You made some interesting points CharChar. However, the bottom line is who is going to pay for local infrastructure and who profits from it.

Is your beef really with realtors, developers, the Wake County Commisioners, or CTC?

The Board of Realtors, Homebuilders Association, and other (pondscumers), all profit from growth.

...as does every other business in Cary. Increased growth results in increased customers for everyone. It also creates new jobs and business providing many new opportunities.

The old taxpayer and the "new" taxpayer therefore shoulder the burden of the new infrastructure (higher tax, bonds, degradation of services, over crowded schools).

Sure seems to be working that way. Again, "maybe" if our tax dollars were used a bit more wisely....... oops, sorry, nevermind again.

Meanwhile, all the "developer" people are living large on the Coast in 10-bedroom mansions (or least oceanfront Condos). Oh, and if these "developers" have children, they probably go to private schools; heaven forbid they would have to mix with unclean masses.

Heaven forbid a successful business owner is able to enjoy success. You went off course a bit here Wup. I bet many non-developer types here in Cary alone have vacation homes at the coast, mountains, or even over seas.

I believe the problem goes back to our elected officials. Whether that be the WCC, CTC, or WCPSS. "If" our tax dollars were used for what they were supposed to be used for and NOT the "Jesse Helms Convention Center" as you call it, an Aquatics Palace, or Public Art, we might not be in the predicament we're in now.

Don

10-13-2004, 12:36 PM

"Never trust a person who makes a living on commission." - Old Saying

Most Automotive Technicians make their living on commision. :evil:

Don

10-13-2004, 12:38 PM

I believe a schools impact fee may be a good idea - however, unless all the foolish and wasteful spending is eliminated, it's a small band-aid for a big wound.

johnb

10-13-2004, 12:57 PM

Charchar,

You have it all wrong.

You trap and drown squirrels. Cats get trapped and taken to the SPCA.

In Jacksonville.

:evil:

washere

10-13-2004, 01:19 PM

I would choose a one-time, up-front tax before higher annual property taxes anyday.

I couldn't agree more. That's why I believe that any Realtor who truly considered THIS particular impact fee would be well-served to support it.

It's very unfortunate that so many involved in the homes business are so driven by the dollar. I can see why developers behave this way- they build and leave. They don't have to deal with the mess they create.

Realtors, on the other hand have no excuse. Being driven by today's commission, all the while creating huge problems for yourself and your community down the line is...silly (being polite here :lol: ).

You're absolutely right, Wuptdo, development should pay for itself. And if those responsible don't pay upfront, we all pay more on the tail end.

Um, and no, I'm not some PR rep hired to do the Board's bidding :lol:, although I'm not working right now (home with the kiddos for a little longer, I hope).

And I don't worry about posting my opinions. Honestly, if another broker asked what I thought, I'd tell them exactly what I told you. Any good Realtor is going to tell you that dealing with infrastructure issues is extremely important when attracting new buyers. We may all have different ideas on the best way to proceed, but we have the same goal in mind in that respect.

Asking the town to put a 3-5 year moratorium on new home construction will not go over well with Realtors (or me). It's not good for the community to put such stringent growth controls in place anyhow. The much better plan, is to make people pay their own way in the first place.

Oh, and do you think maybe your neighbor was offended when you called her pondscum? :wink:

I'll forgive ya though, you went to State B-) .

washere

10-13-2004, 01:25 PM

Charchar,

You have it all wrong.

You trap and drown squirrels. Cats get trapped and taken to the SPCA.

In Jacksonville.

:evil:
Well, the squirrels are a similar problem. Except they seem infinitely more copious than the cats.

Either way, they both terrorize our poor doggie, and the squirrels think it's funny to throw things at our windows and roof :roll: .

Oh, and Tim and I are still waiting for our "Dick Nixon" for Congess yard sign :wink: .

johnb

10-13-2004, 06:27 PM

Seeing how quickly the knuckledraggers on the city council backpedalled on the sign ordinance I think it's clear a light has flickered behind that low sloping brow most of them have that they have a legally indefensible ordinance. ;)

Don't forget though write Nixon in on your ballot!

I'll be voting for Dick Nixon for a number of offices on November 2nd.

He's the right man for every seat on the Soil and Water Conservation Board.

;)

He's the best kind of politician. Being at room temperature means he can't bother anyone.

Wuptdo

11-01-2004, 01:36 PM

Looks like the crows have come back to roost:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1787068p-8079838c.html

"(Since we) have said the (fee) was wrong, then it logically follows that those requirements that results from it were wrong as well." - Mayor Ernie McAlister

I don't know about you, but I smell a county or city (or both) tax increase coming our way.

Wuptdo B-)

StanN

11-01-2004, 01:57 PM

Brent

11-01-2004, 02:01 PM

Don

11-01-2004, 02:06 PM

Don Frantz wrote:
I believe a schools impact fee may be a good idea - however, unless all the foolish and wasteful spending is eliminated, it's a small band-aid for a big wound.

Don: Instead of your sweeping generality above, why not tell us where WCPSS wastes all that money. What would you propose to cut that you know is wasteful. And please tell us how it is possible to waste so much when WCPSS spends less per student than comparable urban schools. I can't wait to hear your in-depth analysis.

Stan

Sorry Stan,
I should have been more specific. It's hard to organize my thoughts while working under the hood sometimes. I "should" have said........

"...however, until all the foolish and wasteful spending by the WCC is eliminated......"

Hope that helps, now if you'ld still like "in depth analysis", we can go there.......but I really don't think it is neccessary. I agree WCPSS works wonders with what little they get.

Anonymous

11-21-2004, 07:24 PM

Unfortunately, 80% of the time the person who spends the most money wins. Dems spend money to keep their people in power, Republicans do not spend money on local candidates. Therefore, NC is a liberial controlled state and remains so and will be so until campaign finance reform is inacted.

Anonymous

11-22-2004, 09:02 AM

StanN

11-22-2004, 09:04 AM

from the N&O
Published: Nov 22, 2004
Modified: Nov 22, 2004 1:20 AM

Pinching in Wake
Cutting the next school bond issue to make up money being spent because of under-funding would undermine Wake's future

If Wake County were a family, the worst thing to do when a big, unanticipated crowd shows up for Thanksgiving dinner would be to skimp on food. That's what happened to the school system this year when the Wake commissioners pinched a third off the budget increase requested, and more than 5,000 new students showed up for an education.
Now to cope with another crowd at enrollment time next year, the school system asked for -- and last week received -- $40.4 million to buy two modular schools and a flock of mobile classrooms. Although this solution will cost more in upkeep over the long haul, the additional space is vital to the education mission.

Once again, the Wake commissioners are waffling on school funding. Left hanging, after signing off on the $40.4 million, was the distinct possibility that the commissioners would cut a like amount from the next bond issue to build schools. Pinching resources for a fast-growing school system would be the worst thing to do for the county's economic future.

Like it or not, Wake County must jockey for the jobs and tax base of nimble companies capable of solving problems and competing globally. Such employers are less likely to ship work to cheap overseas labor markets, as North Carolina's traditional industries have. And good schools are what these companies need, to educate workers as well as their children. A community that shortchanges its schools risks business decisions being made to invest elsewhere, decisions being made right now.

Approving money to solve the schools' space crunch this week sent a favorable signal to anyone contemplating future investment here. Unfortunately, though, the commissioners muddled their message by holding open the option to cut back the next school bond issue, which is at most only two years away. "For us to be so penny-pinching just blows my mind," said veteran Commissioner Betty Lou Ward.

Wake fell behind in school construction during a wave of penny-pinching in the mid-1990s and still struggles to keep classes small enough to help teachers teach. Yet even under those difficult circumstances, Wake schools have narrowed the racial achievement gap and dramatically improved test scores of third- to eighth-grade students.

School leaders have committed to reach an even more ambitious goal by 2008: 95 percent of all students, including those in high school, must perform at grade level on state tests. Giving teachers time enough to reach virtually all students won't come cheap. But for knowledge-based businesses, doing so is a minimum requirement. To make it happen, the schools will need absolute, confident support from those who control the budget.

© Copyright 2004, The News & Observer Publishing Company,
a subsidiary of The McClatchy Company

Don

11-22-2004, 10:46 AM

Republicans do not spend money on local candidates.

I don't know what elections you have been watching but the Western Wake Republican Party practically runs Cary. They were the only party involved in Cary's last election. As a result Cary has a very conservative council.[/quote]

NOT True. The Democrats supported their candidates as well. I received a mailer from Nels put out by the Democratic Party. (little one on orange paper). The biggest difference IMO is that the members of WWGOP were more active than it's counterpart and had a very strong grassroots organization.

WWGOP typically (or maybe never I'm not sure) donates to any specific local candidate, They will however help with an endorsement and a mailer. I was endorsed by WWGOP but never received a dime. Their endorsement got my name on a mailer, that was all. ( I know this isn't free but if the Dems did the same.....)

The members of the party are what made the difference. The Dem's need to take notice and become more organized and active instead of pointing fingers.

Wuptdo

11-22-2004, 01:17 PM

I have been seeing many figures kicked around, but if they move the next bond issue up, I thinking they will want around $850-950 million dollars to meet the future needs. Somehow I don't think is is going to fly with the taxpayers. The got 70% approval last time at $450 million, but at $850 million is a much bigger pill.

Wouldn't be great if the developer community had to kick in and help fund schools. Didn't Cary use to have an APF ordenance. I wonder why WC didn't do the same thing. Me thinks that many people are making lots of money, but us serfs are paying the bill. Maybe, Jennifer Weiss could help. She always talks about education, maybe she get help us finds some ways to get money from the developer community with state approval.

I wonder, how do we engerize the serfs to riot?

Wuptdo B-)

washere

11-22-2004, 02:46 PM

Wup-
That's easy.

Make yourself more of a pest than the NAR, the RRAR, and the developer community.

And have a lovely time doing it :twisted: .

StanN

11-22-2004, 04:04 PM

Other than in the UA, an APF would have to be enforced by each of 13 muni jurisdictions in the County.

There is a common misunderstanding about the role of the County. Although it is rsponsible for school financing, it has no power over the muni's. It can't order the muni's to do squat. Each muni has certain powers to control land use within its juridiction. The county can do likewise within the UA. In the eyes of the state they are equals in this respect. So for an APF ordinance to work it would have to be passed by each of the 13 munis in Wake. Otherwise it could be circumvented by moving to the next muni.

The school board and the WCC would also have to approve same. For an APF to be legal there must be a plan in place to provide the facilities that were deemed inaequate - thus giving government the right to stop developing/building until they were made adequate. In a word forgetaboutit! IMHO Only statwide permission to counties to levy an impact fee will work. Then the WCC has no place to hide.

stan