On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:47:15 GMT, "Alan"
> wrote:

>
>
>"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.

But is that what they do before or after they sell out to developers?

>> > 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.

Eh?

Could it be that with more citizens in total the PER CAPITA property
tax rate has diminished?

Think.

> I'll read up on your other examples.
>
>Alan
>