Question regarding property taxes... (crime, home sales, buyers)

[woodinvilleguy]

It should be easy to figure out the developer fair share since when they start a development they know how many lots they are going to build. Based on the number of lots they should be able to estimate the average load on the school district when built out.

[jobert]

California is the prime example of what happens when you place bond issues in front of a "gimme-gimme" society. You'll find that most people are complete imbecils, and will agree to pay for anything if dangled in front of them. Please lecture your friends and neighbors who have moved from the west coast and let them not repeat their mistakes in our backyard.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

Again, TCAD has no problem at all coming up with my fair share of property taxes.

Whether their costs are passed on to their buyers or not is a business decision for them. Really, they should be. What business is it of mine to pay for a school in Hutto or Bastrop (no offense against Hutto or Bastrop, both lovely communities)?

Again, why is it 'tough' to ask a developer to cough up money for schools and infrastructure, but not tough to ask you or me?

But you DON'T pay for schools in Hutto or Bastrop do you? Unless you live in that school district.

TCAD's job is easy because their assessment is based on right now values - the value of your property. Assessing a new development requires a forecast.

It isn't tough to ask for the money. But unless a law is passed - there is no way a developer will agree to it.

[Zzyzx]

Originally Posted by jobert

California is the prime example of what happens when you place bond issues in front of a "gimme-gimme" society. You'll find that most people are complete imbecils, and will agree to pay for anything if dangled in front of them. Please lecture your friends and neighbors who have moved from the west coast and let them not repeat their mistakes in our backyard.

So you want us to lecture to new residents from the west coast about the mistakes old residents made to the current tax system

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by woodinvilleguy

It should be easy to figure out the developer fair share since when they start a development they know how many lots they are going to build. Based on the number of lots they should be able to estimate the average load on the school district when built out.

So if the development has 500 lots then the rate of build out isn't considered? Or if it is - how are you going to determine the rate? I bet EVERY development in Travis County had a projected build out calendar three years ago - that is now completely wrong because of the economy.

What if the development expects to attract older home buyers with fewer children? Or just seniors with no children? No builder building homes for young families would ever advertise that under the proposed program. Such a program might have some interesting outcomes - such as developers choosing to build fewer homes on larger lots to avoid the school district penalty. Developers will quickly hire lawyers to help them game the system.

[woodinvilleguy]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

So if the development has 500 lots then the rate of build out isn't considered? Or if it is - how are you going to determine the rate? I bet EVERY development in Travis County had a projected build out calendar three years ago - that is now completely wrong because of the economy.

What if the development expects to attract older home buyers with fewer children? Or just seniors with no children? No builder building homes for young families would ever advertise that under the proposed program. Such a program might have some interesting outcomes - such as developers choosing to build fewer homes on larger lots to avoid the school district penalty. Developers will quickly hire lawyers to help them game the system.

I would make a flat rate of kids per width of lot. It wouldn't be accurate but I bet an accuary could make a number that is pretty close. They could have the money put in escrow accounts to be built over time as the community is built out, similar to the way they build ammenity centers.

If the cost is based on the size of the lot then it really would be an advantage either way to build smaller or larger lots. Larger lots may spend more per actual person but that isn't any different to the property tax issue, the more you make the more you end up paying just a fact of life. I wish I didn't have to pay as much taxes but that is the way the cookie crumbles.

As for senior only communities, there are very clear rules for setting those up and maintaining they have federal rules to follow. And it is still in the seniors best interest to have good schools for society in general, IMHO.

[The Tech-1]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

What's the first?

The first / highest is nazi NJ
followed by the neighborly NY
then TX,
and MA (aka taxachussetts)

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

Why call it a tax? It's common sense that a developer should have to develop the infrastructure of a parcel of land and not expect taxpayers to do it for them. Whether the developer wants to pass it on to the home buyers would be a question of free enterprise and supply and demand.

As for who builds the schools, the school district would. I'm not arguing about bricks and mortar construction, I'm arguing for the FINANCING of it. The developers should have to contribute financially, to a set aside fund, for building new schools and other needed infrastructure. It's not that complicated.

That makes no sense at all as a funding mechanism for schools. Money that the developers have to come up with doesn't magically appear out of thin air. If a developer were to be required to pay that money up front, that cost would of course have to be passed on to the home buyer and it would be astronomical if they had to pay it all up front. If they had to take out a loan to pay that cost it becomes even more burdensome with compounded interest added on.

Property taxes collected to support schools are collected year after year for the life of the property and based on what the school districts actual needs are rather then an estimate of what might or might not be needed in the future.

Lets say my house contributes $1,000 per year for 50 years to the school district, thats $50,000 that would be added to the purchase price of the home when I bought it. Also chances are that even if this house wears out, gets torn down and rebuilt in 50 years, there will still be schools needing funding on into the future for as long as there is a city here that would not be covered by that original $50,000 payment. Where does that money come from?

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

That makes no sense at all as a funding mechanism for schools. Money that the developers have to come up with doesn't magically appear out of thin air. If a developer were to be required to pay that money up front, that cost would of course have to be passed on to the home buyer and it would be astronomical if they had to pay it all up front. If they had to take out a loan to pay that cost it becomes even more burdensome with compounded interest added on.

Property taxes collected to support schools are collected year after year for the life of the property and based on what the school districts actual needs are rather then an estimate of what might or might not be needed in the future.

Lets say my house contributes $1,000 per year for 50 years to the school district, thats $50,000 that would be added to the purchase price of the home when I bought it. Also chances are that even if this house wears out, gets torn down and rebuilt in 50 years, there will still be schools needing funding on into the future for as long as there is a city here that would not be covered by that original $50,000 payment. Where does that money come from?

This is why tax increases (in the form of bonds and direct taxes) are passed so easily....it's always 'pennies a day for the average family' as the PR goes. When the actual costs are levied against those who will use the amenities, such as schools, roads, etc., then it becomes a problem.

Of course the money would have to be passed on to the home buyer...who might then choose to buy a pre-existing house rather than a McMansion that's paved over yet more of the Edwards Aquifer. The TRUE COST of these homes should be passed on to the people who are buying them.

[Trainwreck20]

who might then choose to buy a pre-existing house rather than a McMansion that's paved over yet more of the Edwards Aquifer

Soooo....no new houses would be built at all, becuase the every shrinking portion that was new would have to foot the bill for any new school.