Ann Lilly lillyam@elpasotexas.gov
Larry Romero romerol@elpasotexas.gov
Emma Acosta acostaea@elpasotexas.gov
Carl Robinson robinsoncl@elpasotexas.gov
Michiel Noe noem@elpasotexas.gov
Eddie Holguin holguinex@elpasotexas.gov
Lily Limon limonl@elpasotexas.gov
Cortney Niland nilandcc@elpasotexas.gov
The issue is a matter of fairness as I have written in two previous posts HERE and HERE and one just posted today. The need for the EPWU to make improvements at the Bustamante and Jonathan Rogers Water Treatment plants as well as other infrastructure expansions is new development particularly in east, northeast and northwest El Paso. If you buy a new home in a newly developed area, then in all fairness you should pay for the improvements the utility has had to make. You shouldn't expect others to pay for it.
Besides the highest increase (on the east side) is only an additional $1,259.25 per home or just $6.20/month on a 30 year loan at the highest current rate of 4.25%. $6.20!!!
One expects builders to add on more per home not only to cover the impact fee increase but to garner some more profit. So why are some builders adamant that there not only be any further impact fee increases but that impact fees should be done away with altogether? The increase of $6.20/month on a mortgage payment doesn't threaten the sale of a home nor justify an outcry.
I suspect that some builders truly believe that more development means more in the City coffers via property taxes. I don't think builders are bad people. I just don't think that they realize that the additional growth means higher property taxes for all of us to pay for the additional infrastructure and services for new development. Growth doesn't pay for itself as study after study shows. In a town of lower incomes, the burden of development becomes a real drag on the family income because of higher property taxes.
Studies show that each new home built in a new development will cost an extra $18,000. Multiply that by the number of new homes in a new development and you have the additional tax burden for all of us to pay. That's why Smart Growth which cuts that expense in half makes more sense. Builders don't like smart growth. Again, I don't think they want in their heart of hearts to burden low income El Pasoans to subsidize their work; I think that they just believe something that isn't true - viz., growth pays for itself. Sprawl hurts the family income. It hurts that income a lot.
So, in all fairness, those who use something should pay for it. Those who don't, shouldn't. The increase isn't extravagant and quite affordable under a 30 year mortgage. Opposing this small increase may be a belief in something that just isn't true: that we can grow our way to prosperity. In fact, we can't and the way we are growing is adding greater burden on the property tax of all El Pasoans.
Please read Michael Kingsley's short paper "Sustainable Development: Prosperity without Growth" which he published in 1992. His conclusion: "In summary, while growth is often perceived as the only path to economic viability, the good news for both declining and growing communities is that there is an alternative. Prosperity does not require growth; it requires development that is sustainable. The global perspective makes it painfully clear that, if our strategies for economic development are not sustainable, they will be terminal." [Emphases are mine.]
No comments:
Post a Comment