Let's say that I plan to attend several concerts at the Plaza downtown but I don't want to pay for parking. I want to use a parking space downtown but I don't want to pay for it. Instead, I want the property taxes of all other property owners in El Paso to increase by a few cents to pay for my parking space. Fair? Of course not. I use the parking space so I should pay for it. I could, of course, elect to park away from downtown and walk - but I can't force you to pay for the convenience of my parking downtown.
Or, say I want a swimming pool in my backyard - the works: rock landscaping, a waterfall, a grotto, a spa. But I don't want to pay for it; instead I want you to pay for it with an additional fee tacked on to your water bill. Fair? Need I answer.
To accommodate new development in west, east and northeast El Paso, the EPWU will have to fund some capital improvement projects. We're talking about expanding the Bustamante Wastewater Treatment Plant, new interceptors, new pumping and force mains, etc. These are improvements that they should be making because of the new homes that additional people will need. To finance these improvements, the PSB approved and the EPWU requested impact fee increases. Here is their presentation to the City Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) on January 27th:
CIAC with 7 developers and 2 neophytes on the committee voted unanimously to oppose the increase. The City Plan Commission (CPC) voted 6-0-1 to recommend the increase to City Council.
Just skim through the presentation and you can see the additional improvements that must be made to the water and wastewater systems to keep up with new development.
Keep in mind that the impact fees only cover 75% of the expenses. You and I (unfair or not) will pay the additional 25%. (Hmmm . . . wonder if I can get at least 25% of my dream pool paid by the rest of you.)
However, to hear the El Paso Times tell the story a crisis akin to Hurricane Sandy is about to hit El Paso. In their Sunday story yesterday, an added headline reads: "Sharp increase is possible if City Council approves ordinance".
Sharp increase? $3,835 more per new home on the eastside is a sharp increase? Amortized over 30 years at 5% and that increase is no more than $15 per month. If someone can't afford an additional $15 per month, they shouldn't be buying the house. Heck, if I were the developer, I'd raise the price $5,000 and no one would blink at the difference. I bet that developers do just that or more.
But, what if the City follows by raising the taxes on our homes again? Then that additional cost of the home may mean paying much more in taxes each year. This isn't an argument against impact fees. This is an argument against out-of-control city spending by City reps who campaign against taxing people out of their homes and yet approve budgets that do just that.
Some will argue that we shouldn't have to pay for other things that we don't use. I don't get to drive the shiny new police car - but I do get the protection and the confidence that El Paso will continue to be the safest city its size in the country. I'm not on welfare so why should I pay for it. However, our entire community benefits and our commonwealth expands when we aren't burdened by added expenses of crime, poor health, lack of education, etc. It's a good thing in and of itself to offer a hand up. It's a additional bonus when that hand leads to greater productivity and an expanding economy because of more employment and so forth.
Finally, the PSB does not hold city land in its inventory in order to finance future development. Although I'm sure that he knew better, Ed Archuleta unwisely used that argument when he tried to prevent putting more land into permanent open space. No, the PSB manages our land in order to recharge our aquifers from whence we get half our city water and, in droughts, much more than that. Some of that land is not necessary for recharging and could be sold except that some of us argue that some of that land (but not all) should be kept in a natural state because of other ecological benefits and aesthetic and recreational enjoyments.
The issues of growth paying for itself (or not), infill development, smart growth can be considered separate to this discussion on impact fees. It is only fair that those whose new homes will increase the need for water and wastewater infrastructure should pay for those additional capital improvements. Whether the additional growth by development really does pay for itself is another matter. But keep in mind one fact like death itself: our borders are finite - our space, though seemingly copious, is limited. How do you have a healthy, sustainable economy beyond growth? If there is a means to do so, shouldn't we be exploring that exciting economic possibility rather than gobbling up all the beauty and benefits that we can have by keeping much of our land naturally pristine?
And one more question: shouldn't El Pasoans be considering the possibility that cheap building labor and cheap homes are not the engines which are driving our economy but the anchors that are weighting us down and keeping our property taxes too high? (Perhaps to answer that question would be to discover why some developers adamantly oppose impact fee increases.)
But that's another debate.
Just skim through the presentation and you can see the additional improvements that must be made to the water and wastewater systems to keep up with new development.
Keep in mind that the impact fees only cover 75% of the expenses. You and I (unfair or not) will pay the additional 25%. (Hmmm . . . wonder if I can get at least 25% of my dream pool paid by the rest of you.)
However, to hear the El Paso Times tell the story a crisis akin to Hurricane Sandy is about to hit El Paso. In their Sunday story yesterday, an added headline reads: "Sharp increase is possible if City Council approves ordinance".
Sharp increase? $3,835 more per new home on the eastside is a sharp increase? Amortized over 30 years at 5% and that increase is no more than $15 per month. If someone can't afford an additional $15 per month, they shouldn't be buying the house. Heck, if I were the developer, I'd raise the price $5,000 and no one would blink at the difference. I bet that developers do just that or more.
But, what if the City follows by raising the taxes on our homes again? Then that additional cost of the home may mean paying much more in taxes each year. This isn't an argument against impact fees. This is an argument against out-of-control city spending by City reps who campaign against taxing people out of their homes and yet approve budgets that do just that.
Some will argue that we shouldn't have to pay for other things that we don't use. I don't get to drive the shiny new police car - but I do get the protection and the confidence that El Paso will continue to be the safest city its size in the country. I'm not on welfare so why should I pay for it. However, our entire community benefits and our commonwealth expands when we aren't burdened by added expenses of crime, poor health, lack of education, etc. It's a good thing in and of itself to offer a hand up. It's a additional bonus when that hand leads to greater productivity and an expanding economy because of more employment and so forth.
Finally, the PSB does not hold city land in its inventory in order to finance future development. Although I'm sure that he knew better, Ed Archuleta unwisely used that argument when he tried to prevent putting more land into permanent open space. No, the PSB manages our land in order to recharge our aquifers from whence we get half our city water and, in droughts, much more than that. Some of that land is not necessary for recharging and could be sold except that some of us argue that some of that land (but not all) should be kept in a natural state because of other ecological benefits and aesthetic and recreational enjoyments.
The issues of growth paying for itself (or not), infill development, smart growth can be considered separate to this discussion on impact fees. It is only fair that those whose new homes will increase the need for water and wastewater infrastructure should pay for those additional capital improvements. Whether the additional growth by development really does pay for itself is another matter. But keep in mind one fact like death itself: our borders are finite - our space, though seemingly copious, is limited. How do you have a healthy, sustainable economy beyond growth? If there is a means to do so, shouldn't we be exploring that exciting economic possibility rather than gobbling up all the beauty and benefits that we can have by keeping much of our land naturally pristine?
And one more question: shouldn't El Pasoans be considering the possibility that cheap building labor and cheap homes are not the engines which are driving our economy but the anchors that are weighting us down and keeping our property taxes too high? (Perhaps to answer that question would be to discover why some developers adamantly oppose impact fee increases.)
But that's another debate.
At this point in the expansion of the city and the ongoing drought, it may well be that all of the PSB land is needed for recharging and for natural open space, which among other things eliminates the construction of additional sprawl and additional demand on stressed aquifers. Has anyone seen any water in the river lately?
ReplyDelete