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.
Looks like a tax to pay for the services toward new developments. Considering the fact that it costs more to supply sprawl and new exurb developments with basic city services than traditional urban development, it looks like a way to target the cost of those services to the actual recipients. Doesn’t sound like that bad of an idea. In fact, it sounds like a good way to align these exurb developments with the actual cost they exert on the community. Should also be a good way to control out-of-control sprawl.
Looks like a tax to pay for the services toward new developments. Considering the fact that it costs more to supply sprawl and new exurb developments with basic city services than traditional urban development, it looks like a way to target the cost of those services to the actual recipients. Doesn’t sound like that bad of an idea. In fact, it sounds like a good way to align these exurb developments with the actual cost they exert on the community. Should also be a good way to control out-of-control sprawl.
What are you talking about? Mello-Roos is avoided by most homebuyers I know. Not too many homeowners enjoy seeing the words "special tax" on their biannual tax bill.
If this is such a great thing, why do so many new developments advertise "NO MELLO-ROOS." Hellooooo!! It's to attract homebuyers. It's obvious you've never had to pay this type of special tax or known anyone who has.
As I've previously stated in other posts: California is driving its legal, high-earning residents away. Mello-Roos - go figure. No wonder it hasn't caught national attention. Thank goodness.
And why do you insist on blaming the suburbs for everything? Urban development is costly too. You think highrises are cheap? Only urban areas deserve city/community facilities to be paid for by all taxpayers and not just those who live in the area?
This is a paste from that web site.
In 1982, two state legislators, Sen. Henry Mello (Dem., Watsonville) and Assemblyman Mike Roos (Dem., West Hollywood) found a way around proposition 13 and affected passage of a bill known as the Community Facilities Act. This act authorized local governments and developers to create Community Facilities Districts for the purpose of selling tax-exempt bonds to fund public improvements. The homeowner then pays an annual special assessment tax, to pay back the bonds.
Most new neighborhoods in Orange County have Mello-Roos fees. These help pay for new roads, schools, parks, libraries,, and other community services in developing areas. But they also affect the affordability of houses that have them.
Now I understand that this can be expensive and most home buyers would want to avoid paying any extra fees since most homes in California are way over priced to start with.I watch all the shows(property ladder,designed to sell..etc.)that show what these people pay for junk to average housing.
However communities do need to find creative ways to make improvements to keep/make these places liveable.So I can see both sides of this coin.I feel your pain about being pushed out of where you live.I was considering a move to Naples Fla.3 years ago but between the prices of housing,taxes,insurance and peoples generally crappy attitudes towards the average working class we said the heck with that.Sounds like Texas and San Antonio in particular is the place to be.
Doesn't seem to be curbing out-of-control sprawl in S Cal. Building is going on everywhere.
I did some "comparison shopping" on Friday here in SD County. Looked at 6 new home developments ranging from the high 800k-1.5mil. I swear - I don't know who can afford those places. There is really nothing below the 800k range unless you want a condo or townhome.
On our block, everyone is starting to outgrow their homes but with prices for something bigger starting at 800k and salaries not exactly climbing at the same rate, it's almost impossible. Add some hefty HOAs & M-Rs to the mix & it's a definite call to leave the state.
We know some folks doing it though with "creative financing". I can't help but think they'll find themselves in a heap of trouble down the road.
First, it’s simple to see that it costs more to install services to sprawling exurbs v. dense urban developments. When you have less people living per acre (in some places in Texas less than one!), it is going to cost more to provide water, trash, etc, to those places. I think it is absolutely fair to require those people to pay a special tax to pay for that extra cost. One of the biggest costs is roads, since people in the exurbs have to drive everywhere for everything! This causes enormous wear and tear on the road system, not to mention the detrimental effect on the environment.
Second, of course developers are going to advertise that their Mc. Mansions don’t have the extra tax. Obviously, they are going to advertise anything that would reduce the cost of their development as opposed to another. Simple economics.
Finally, as far as California chasing out their high earners; well, no more than NYC. It may be chasing out some people who can’t afford to live there, but that doesn’t necessarily make them “high earners” in my book. I have a feeling that many people complaining could afford a place in California, but they want a huge Mc. Mansion which is more expensive in California. That is why they leave.
Interesting tax - not sure on all the details on how it works. It kind of works here, though...if you move way out in the country, you have to personally pay to have the water/power extended to your lot or drill a well. The road will probably be dirt/gravel and will have to be maintained by those that live on it. What it amounts to is a 'tax' without the government waste in the middle.
For more suburban (rather than rural) areas, this sounds like a MUD (municipal utility district), which taxes the residents within the MUD to pay for services. The MUDs are outside the city limits and do not generally pay city sales or property taxes.
This may be general knowledge (I am rather new to this board), but most taxes will come through your property tax since there is no income tax. County tax, city tax, school tax, and various special taxed (community college, MUD, etc.) will add up to quite a bit. Some of these taxes will 'freeze' based on the owners age, but it is location specific.
There's a huge proposed plan to add tons of art along 281 from the airport all the way to downtown. Let me find the article.
Animal art may adorn longer stretch of 281
Web Posted: 08/08/2006 08:00 AM CDT
Patrick Driscoll
San Antonio Express-News
The San Antonio Conservation Society may have hoped the idea of sculpting a safari of animals along U.S. 281 — to greet visitors headed downtown — went extinct years ago.
MySA.com: Metro | State (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA080806.1A.gateway.22daa69.html - broken link)
Last edited by Marka; 12-07-2007 at 10:26 AM..
Reason: copyright issues
I like the idea of the stone scultures along the 281. They could certainly do worse by building more strip malls & business parks.
Quote:
Finally, as far as California chasing out their high earners; well, no more than NYC. It may be chasing out some people who can’t afford to live there, but that doesn’t necessarily make them “high earners” in my book. I have a feeling that many people complaining could afford a place in California, but they want a huge Mc. Mansion which is more expensive in California. That is why they leave.
I'm sure there are some folks leaving CA because they want a McMansion but of all the people I know who have left California in the last 3 yrs, none have been high-earners. 3 of them are teachers (hardly high-earners) and the rest are just avg earners trying to raise a family and save for the future.
Our house in SD is barely 1300sf, 2 bdrm/1 bath on 1400sf of property. With a husband in a powered wheelchair (read: takes a lot of room to maneuver), a house that's 78 yrs old (read: constant repair) & a need for kid space, we really do need a bigger house. Not a McMansion but something bigger. This house last appraised at 525k. That's ridiculous! In order for us to buy up, we're looking in the neighborhood of 800k...and that is by no means a McMansion nor is it in an exclusive neighborhood. There is no way in heck we are willing to buy a 2000sf house for 800k - it's offensive, if you ask me. We're not so in love with San Diego weather or the ocean to pay that.
The 1.2 million homes were yes, McMansions, on postage stamp-sized lots. The 800k-900k houses were just avg homes. Honestly, there really are not a lot of new construction homes in the county for under 800k. Friends trying to buy ANYTHING are buying 1100sf 20 yr condos for over 450k.
You CAN buy homes in the 300k range (we did 5 yrs ago for 150k & sold 2 yrs later for twice that) but those houses will all have security bars on the windows and are falling apart because of the neighborhoods they are in.
First, it’s simple to see that it costs more to install services to sprawling exurbs v. dense urban developments. When you have less people living per acre (in some places in Texas less than one!), it is going to cost more to provide water, trash, etc, to those places. I think it is absolutely fair to require those people to pay a special tax to pay for that extra cost. One of the biggest costs is roads, since people in the exurbs have to drive everywhere for everything! This causes enormous wear and tear on the road system, not to mention the detrimental effect on the environment.
Second, of course developers are going to advertise that their Mc. Mansions don’t have the extra tax. Obviously, they are going to advertise anything that would reduce the cost of their development as opposed to another. Simple economics.
Finally, as far as California chasing out their high earners; well, no more than NYC. It may be chasing out some people who can’t afford to live there, but that doesn’t necessarily make them “high earners” in my book. I have a feeling that many people complaining could afford a place in California, but they want a huge Mc. Mansion which is more expensive in California. That is why they leave.
This is my final response to the above statement:
Can't afford to live here?? What salary do you feel those who wish to live in California should earn? Should you now have to fill out a credit application to live in California? High earners are those who make double, sometimes triple, what the poverty level in the state is. SD Tribune had an article about housing affordablity, when Police Officers, Teachers, Firefighters - the people who protect the city and teach our youth -- cannot afford to buy a home in the city they serve, then there is a serious problem. When you make six-figures, you are way above a high earner status. You are rich, not wealthy, but rich. But, high five figures is a high earner. The average salary is not even that in SD. There are teachers who earn $55k+ annually. They should be able to qualify for a home loan that will buy them a home in a decent, safe area. I don't think they are looking to by McMansions. They are not low-wage earners.
You seem to be bent on this rant of yours about urban vs. suburban. Well let me say this...it is in the suburbs where people who have families, those who are raising our next generation of human beings, want to live. And why should they have to live on 1/16 of an acre and look at each other in the morning through their windows because the homes are so close together, just to be able to afford a home. Because they choose to live in a safer environment for their children -- our future? And because of this you feel they should be taxed more??? These same families are bringing in money to the suburbs where they live. Money=shopping = stores = jobs=money=shopping=stores=jobs... You are confusing Rural with Suburbs; they are not the same.
And who says they aren't paying high property taxes anyway? Most are. It's the special taxes that really are not necessary...if the property taxes are assessed on the higher valued home, then the funds will be available for the services these communities need. Simply adding a special tax and reducing the price of the home is counter productive...HELLO. You are still paying for the cost; only now you pay monthly on top of your mortgage and insurance. And you don't even have a say on how much the "builder" decides he needs to borrow for all these services... he/she can go buck wild and the homeowner ends up paying back the debt on services that may never materialize or they may never use.
You really are one of the few people I've ever known to actually like Mello-Roos; other than Mello, Roos, city planners, city-bond investors, and builders.
Fair? Ask those who were sold on Mello Roos. I think you will find your opinion in the minority. Some homeowners pay Mello Roos, Homeowners Associations, and School taxes in addition to their normal property taxes. Try swallowing that tax bill! It's just another way for the city and builder to get money. Plain and simple. I'd rather just pay more for my home and the regular property taxes that go with it.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that moving to San Antonio is a good decision. I love the art...thanks again 210.
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.
My last stand
