Points and Trees

[mr&mrssunshine]

yup, although to be fair they did lower impact fees during the dip.........I think everyone is waiting with baited breath for them to be re-instated...fingers crossed they dont

[Rainbowrider]

Be glad you are not in CA. Know one individual there who was going to add 1000 SF to his home. It took 2 years, cost him $200,000 in impact fees before he could start. And this was not a multi-millionare's home either.

[MarkMapo]

Originally Posted by Rainbowrider

Be glad you are not in CA. Know one individual there who was going to add 1000 SF to his home. It took 2 years, cost him $200,000 in impact fees before he could start. And this was not a multi-millionare's home either.

Is that CA like in Canada or California? Sounds like California. Spent some time there.

[beachbum wannabe]

We offered to pay for other trees (palms)to replace the big oak that was in the way of where we wanted to situate the house but were told they were not sure if we could remove it ,and then it was too late...

[mr&mrssunshine]

I'm not sure (without looking) if palms count for points and at what level, but it sounds like you were given the old BS brush off i.e tell them something and hope they don't check up

[PortCharlotteNewbie]

Originally Posted by beachbum wannabe

We offered to pay for other trees (palms)to replace the big oak that was in the way of where we wanted to situate the house but were told they were not sure if we could remove it ,and then it was too late...

Palms and fruit trees don't count. There's permitting involved. Developers don't want to be bothered and take the quickest, cheapest way. There is a list of what trees are permitted. Probably, $100 buys the trees and they are done.

[mr&mrssunshine]

you are right, its the easy way out....at $100 per point /1 point per 2000sq ft you are looking at a min of $400 per lot

[Big House]

Originally Posted by MikMal

It certainly was in Maryland. When we re-built our home there we had to post a bond for reforestation. We then had three options: 1. plant the required number of trees and bushes and get the bond amount back, 2. plant less than the required number and get a partial refund or, 3. plant nothing and get nothing back but the state will plant the required trees/bushes with your money "somewhere in the watershed". Like that really happens!
Would be surprised if it's any different here.

In MD, they would add the reforestation requirements to large development projects as well, sometimes the cost would exceed $100,000. That's a huge expense that the developer (some non-profits) have to pay or their project is dead. It is just one of the hidden fees piled on that jurisdiction require that makes housing less and less affordable for the workforce. It all gets passed on the the end user. Affordable workforce housing is a problem everywhere. Every jurisdiction tacks on these requirements without understanding how they drive up and hurt their own economies in many ways, and don't help their constituents.

I'm not aruing about reforestation, some is good, both for environmental health, and beautification. I am talking about the hidden costs that are hurtful, piled on, and detrimental to good growth planning overall. There are so many requirements and fees, development charges, utility connection fees, and other burdens layered into development and housing costs that are uncoordinated and inefficient that end up burdening the end user and it hurts the end user, and those that have to pay for these requirements for years down the road. Many of these charges have good purposes and goals in mind, but those (various agencies) setting these charges are not coordinating them or thinking about all the harmful ramifications the compounding effect of them does overall. :-(. It hurts the end user most, but it hurts everyone in big ways that most people never consider.

[the searchers]

Makes me wonder what % of the fees are used to support bureaucratic salaries in the different levels of government. I would guess at least 25%.