September 9, 2008
Voters in Washington County Will Be Asked to Put More of Transportation Tab on Developers
The measure referred to the November ballot would increase development-related transportation fees substantially.
September 10, 2008 12:14 AM
John Russell Says:
Nevermind how much developers have been forced to pay because of minimum parking requirements.
September 10, 2008 12:29 PM
al m Says:
Let's take a look a the developers tax returns and see how much they actually made.
I'm sure its in the millions, and millions, and most of the profit ended up tax free via loopholes and Bush tax credits for the rich.
September 10, 2008 3:31 PM
Jason McHuff Says:
First of all, is that a long enough title? :)
As for the article, I'm split between whether road projects should be paid for by new development or entirely by road users. It seems that having developers pay continues the cycle of road building and driving, and that having only road users pay can encourage people to travel more efficiently since it shows them (at least more of) the true cost.
Moreover, new development does not have to lead to more traffic--the business could technically require everyone bike or take transit there. The article does mention transit improvements, but I'd bet that most of the money goes to roads. In addition, if road use was priced better, increased driving caused by more development should result in more revenues that could be used to fund the improvements needed.
That being said, I think that having developers pay is much better than taxing existing property owners, many of which have not generated substantially increased traffic in some time. In addition, I strongly support any fees that make low-density development (most of whats built in Washington County) more expensive, since it does cost more to provide many services when people are more spread out.
forced to pay because of minimum parking requirements
Parking and the driving to the parking are two separate things, impacting two different groups of people. Though I'd definitely support eliminating the requirement.
September 10, 2008 6:44 PM
Erik Halstead Says:
Jason McHuff wrote: Moreover, new development does not have to lead to more traffic--the business could technically require everyone bike or take transit there. The article does mention transit improvements, but I'd bet that most of the money goes to roads.
It'd be interesting if all developments paid for an "access impact fee" which includes investments for BOTH transit and road access, so that existing transit riders aren't forced to subsidize new investments in transit at the expense of their own service.
If close-in developments create huge demands for transit that deny access to those who ride further out, those close-in developments should be asked to pay for higher capacity that they are using. (Just as a further-out development should have to pay for transit access that wouldn't otherwise exist, or for service that inherently costs more to operate due to fewer passengers).
September 10, 2008 7:43 PM
Jason McHuff Says:
If close-in developments create huge demands for transit
that would bring in extra money that can pay for the higher capacity. Shorter trips on fuller buses are cheap to provide compared to longer trips taken on emptier buses (because development is more spread out) in Washington County. In addition, it might be possible to run extra buses on just the busiest, close-in part of the route so they are as full as much of the time as possible.
And adding service to existing lines can attract existing people already in the area and benefit existing riders. Just like road improvements paid for by developers can attract drivers not going to their developments.
However, this doesn't really matter because impact fees generally can not be used for operations (or in the case of roads, maintenance).