"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, most jurisdictions require the developer to not only pay for the
> infrastructure to be developed, but to pay impact fees to schools and
other
> public utilities for every housing unit built. And of course this total
cost
> is passed onto the home buyer as part of the home's purchase cost.

Actually, the impact fees, if paid, are only a token amount of the total
expense. We still don't have impact fees here in most cities and towns in
NC. If you're a developer here you can expect the county and state to pay
for half your road costs and Duke Energy to run power to your sites...even
if it means across the neighboring farmer's land....unless he hires a lawyer
or stands out in the field with a shot gun.

>
> > Name one place where
> > sprawl, and "increasing the tax base" has actually brought down taxes
> > and I'll move there.
>
> Las Vegas. East Wenatchee, WA. Seattle. Portland. etc. etc........ Start
> packing :-)

As in the case of Portland, many of the cities you cite have limitations
controlling sprawl. Charlotte is a poster child of sprawl and encourages
unbridled development, Portland is the poster child for limiting sprawl :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_growth_boundary . If Portland's taxes
property taxes have fallen then you have just helped to prove my argument
that sprawl increases taxes. I'll read up on your other examples.

Alan