Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is almost the dictionary definition of "Shut The Door Behind Me."
Tens of thousands of people in Cary alone, and many more in the rest of Wake County have paid little or nothing for the growth we have brought.
We have reaped the appreciation, and want to piggyback on the backs of new folks for added equity because they are "growth."
Niether Impact fee nor transfer tax is appropriate for the local situation.
Okay...I admit it...I'm a jerk. I'd rather not pay higher taxes to pay for stuff like school construction.
However, impact fees do have some other benefits:
- The tax only generates revenue while new construction is occurring. When Raleigh does stop growing (and the growth expenses go away), the impact fee tax goes away. Contrast that to increased property taxes, which are way less likely to go away when Raleigh stops growing.
Nothing in life is completely fair, but I think impact fees are more fair than the other options. You're saying that property taxes are more fair, but are they? If you've lived in Raleigh for 30 years, you had to pay for new schools 30 times already. Someone just moving into the area gets the benefit of all those taxes collected from you for free! (okay...it's not that simple, but you get my point)
Here's the way I see impact fees....
They're a payment to the local government for improvements to the infrastructure that your move into an area has caused.
However (this is a VERY important point), they are not really an out-of-pocket expense to new home owners, but rather a payment towards the equity in your home (since the impact fee is going to increase the value of all homes, new and existing, by that amount). You may have to pay more for a new home, but your new home is also worth more afterwards. It's essentially a wash on your bottom line.
When you move, you take that impact fee with you (in the form of the extra money you get from selling your house), and you can either 1) buy an existing house where the impact fee is already built into the price of that house, or 2) build a new house where you apply the money from the extra equity in your old house to the new impact fee. If you buy a house in another market that also has impact fees, then you're tranferring your infrastructure equity to that new market (which makes perfect sense to me).
So essentially, everyone only pays an impact fee once in their life (when they buy their first house, which is in the form of an impact fee tax on a new home, or increased equity on an existing home). After that, you can buy and sell your home as often as you want, because after the first house, it's simply a matter of shifting equity from house to house. And that seems to be the most fair option I see.
Dear PDX, let me respectfully say that it is your type of thinking that allows corrupt politicians to remain in office. Generally, politicians care about one thing, and one thing only....getting re-elected!! If the masses were able to organize enough to become a "political force to be reckoned with" then they wouldn't be able to cut the "safety nets for the poor".
PDX, politicians "work for you" and their actions should be dicated by you as a member of the voting public. Not the other way around!!
Ouch!
BTW, I am part of the "political force" to be reckoned with here in Portland. On a first name basis w/ folks at City Hall and the County Commissioners offices. But unfortunately, I only have energy to fight for a few causes. Schools and the environment have topped that list for me for years.
Believe me there are PLENTY of organized masses here in Portland and Oregon. Oregon traditionally has had one of the highest voter turn out rates in the country. And one of the highest percentage of politically active (beyond just voting) public.
And please do not personally attack me as I have not attacked you.
"Nothing in life is completely fair, but I think impact fees are more fair than the other options. You're saying that property taxes are more fair, but are they? If you've lived in Raleigh for 30 years, you had to pay for new schools 30 times already. Someone just moving into the area gets the benefit of all those taxes collected from you for free! (okay...it's not that simple, but you get my point)"
Once again, someone who has been here 30 years NEVER has paid an impact fee, but has had their small contributions to schools through property tax budgeted over 30 years, while enjoying some pretty nice appreciation in real estate value.
I moved here 10 years ago, have never paid transfer tax or impact fee, have paid less than a pittance in property taxes for schools, and have benefited from that FREE RIDE with some pretty nice appreciation.
And there are many tens of thousands just like me.
So, slam the door, and whack this week's new guy to cover the cost? I just don't see it.
If there is an issue with older folks being priced out of their homes by rising property taxes, and I wonder about that, a lien against rising equity may be an avenue to explore to allow them the opportunity to stay in the home. Tap the appreciation and manage the cash flow?
Fairness, if that is really a factor, might include consideration of making people pay for the demands they place on others through user fees, i.e., tuition for public schools, admission to parks and museums, toll roads, so public services pay their own way.
I don't really like it. See, it exactly parallels the basis of thought that supports abuse of newcomers through fees no one else has had to pay.
Ok, after reading up on this my position is starting to shift. I think I am more in favor of bonds that we can all voice our support for on a case by case basis through our right to vote and not a mandated 1% tax on the sale of our homes. Has anybody else changed their mind based on the discussions in this thread?
I still think impact fees are the best solution. And I think transfer taxes are an awful idea.
Bonds have their own problem. We're going to need several separate billion dollar bonds over the next few years (everyone knows that several new bond proposals are already planned, right?). And the political will is not going to be there to support them (the last one just barely passed). So our schools are not going to receive adequate funding, and they're going to go in the crapper.
I still think impact fees are the best solution. And I think transfer taxes are an awful idea.
Bonds have their own problem. We're going to need several separate billion dollar bonds over the next few years (everyone knows that several new bond proposals are already planned, right?). And the political will is not going to be there to support them (the last one just barely passed). So our schools are not going to receive adequate funding, and they're going to go in the crapper.
I think this is where I kind of am, too. I was more neutral on the transfer fees until I saw MikeJ's thoughts on them -- though he and I will still have to agree to disagree on impact fees. :-)
From reflecting on the discussion, I'd want to see impact fees sufficient to ensure minimum level of infrastructure (e.g., money to build minimium-standards schools), with bond funds as options for the community to choose 'enhanced' services. Of course, that's a utopianesque idea that translates poorly to the real world of politics...
Hmmmm,
How about retroactive impact fees?
See, folks who have lived here for years have worn out the schools and roads to the point that huge renovations and repairs are necessary.
So, shouldn't we get popped for the bill in arrears?
Why not utilize a sales tax instead of impact fee/property tax/transfer fee. My problem with the various forms of taxes on real estate is that renters get a free ride. Why shouldn't families in apartments have to help fund the schools that their children attend?
A sales tax will be shared by everyone in the city - not just home owners/buyers/sellers. What's more, the level that a person pays is directly tied to their consumption levels.
See, folks who have lived here for years have worn out the schools and roads to the point that huge renovations and repairs are necessary.
So, shouldn't we get popped for the bill in arrears?
As I stated earlier cities like Portland who don't need new schools but need schools repaired are talking about achieving this through a transfer fee.
And yes can be argued that if you buy a home before the implementation of the tax then you don't pay whereas the new guy pays the tax. Well, that has been happening for years. Federal Income Taxes and Social Security come to mind. My grandmother never paid a dime into to Social Security but was able to collect. And I know just because it was always done that way doesn't mean it's right. But it's 1% ... buyer and seller split it and then the burden is less. And exempt first time home owners if they purchase a home below a certain amount. This protects those people who are scrimping already to own a home.
And for those of you that disagree I'm sure you're looking forward to me being apart of your voting politically public.
I've checked out the website for an update, but was wondering if anybdoy has heard anything new about this proposal. This is a great discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
