[81alum]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10167.msg91912#msg91912 date=1404423843]
One very effective way cities have alleviated the cost of providing services to new residential developement is the the creation of so-called Mello Roos districts, which add fees to property tax bills.  These fees are collected with prop taxes and passed directly to various departments, like water, sewer, streets, etc.  Used extensively in SoCal (not sure about NorCal) these fees can approach prop taxes, particularly in newer developements.

Theoretically, the Mello-Roose districts and other fees are supposed to cover the incremental cost of the development. That's not what I see. These charges tend to exceed the cost of the development's impacts. In our town, the big development that was fought over for decades ended up providing the city with five community ball field, community park, public clubhouse, public art and garden center, a network of walking, bicycle and equestrian trails and over 1,300 acres of open space. This was in addition to exorbitant bedroom taxes and other facilities fees. For acceding to the city's demands, they got the right to 245 building sites.

Forcing new development to pay for the pipe dreams of the local city councils drives up housing prices by driving up the marginal cost of housing. All buyers end up paying that extra cost regardless of whether they are buying one of the shiny new houses or one of the WWII sheds.
[/quote]
All the up-front stuff that developers are forced to create in return for favorable zoning and approvals for their developments actually add to the long-term costs and contribute nothing to paying for them over time.  It is not that I dislike the schools, parks, and affordable housing that they often are required to provide.  But what is really needed is a long term tax base that can be used to keep up the schools, parks, affordable housing as well as provide the extra police and fire and sewage etc. for the development itself.  The current situation is a win-win for both developers and local politicians, since the developers get their projects and the politicians get credit for driving a hard bargain and getting public amenities for the rest of the citizens.  But it is a disaster for the future as services decline and amenities deteriorate.  It is the Stockton model.  Everything that is built needs to be built with a plan to pay for its future service and upkeep, and we are doing a poor job.

[81alum]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10167.msg91912#msg91912 date=1404423843]
One very effective way cities have alleviated the cost of providing services to new residential developement is the the creation of so-called Mello Roos districts, which add fees to property tax bills.  These fees are collected with prop taxes and passed directly to various departments, like water, sewer, streets, etc.  Used extensively in SoCal (not sure about NorCal) these fees can approach prop taxes, particularly in newer developements.

Theoretically, the Mello-Roose districts and other fees are supposed to cover the incremental cost of the development. That's not what I see. These charges tend to exceed the cost of the development's impacts. In our town, the big development that was fought over for decades ended up providing the city with five community ball field, community park, public clubhouse, public art and garden center, a network of walking, bicycle and equestrian trails and over 1,300 acres of open space. This was in addition to exorbitant bedroom taxes and other facilities fees. For acceding to the city's demands, they got the right to 245 building sites.

Forcing new development to pay for the pipe dreams of the local city councils drives up housing prices by driving up the marginal cost of housing. All buyers end up paying that extra cost regardless of whether they are buying one of the shiny new houses or one of the WWII sheds.
[/quote]
All the up-front stuff that developers are forced to create in return for favorable zoning and approvals for their developments actually add to the long-term costs and contribute nothing to paying for them over time.  It is not that I dislike the schools, parks, and affordable housing that they often are required to provide.  But what is really needed is a long term tax base that can be used to keep up the schools, parks, affordable housing as well as provide the extra police and fire and sewage etc. for the development itself.  The current situation is a win-win for both developers and local politicians, since the developers get their projects and the politicians get credit for driving a hard bargain and getting public amenities for the rest of the citizens.  But it is a disaster for the future as services decline and amenities deteriorate.  It is the Stockton model.  Everything that is built needs to be built with a plan to pay for its future service and upkeep, and we are doing a poor job.