Transportation Impact Fees: What do you think?
by BernieMy neighbor and friend of West and Clear Mike Lee reported in the Star-Telegram this week that the city delayed its decision on transportation impact fees. Quite naturally, developers don’t want to pay the fees and are lobbying hard to lower the price.
I think the city staff’s original proposal, which would have encouraged growth in areas that already have sufficient infrastructure, was an excellent plan. The proposed compromises, which would levy a much lower fee across the city, including areas that already have good roads (!?), would be an unfortunate example of the citizens’ best interest being ignored in favor of corporate developers.
Here’s an excerpt of Lee’s article (which I linked to above):
“City staffers initially proposed a series of fees ranging from nothing in the central city, where there are already adequate roads, to more than $6,000 for a single-family home in far-reaching areas. The idea was to create an incentive for developers to build in areas where roads already exist, and eliminate ‘leapfrog development.’
But a committee of developers, real estate agents, contractors and engineering firms worked out a compromise that would have assessed a flat fee of $1,500 for a single family home across most of Fort Worth. The developers said they were worried that the original proposal would discourage new construction.”
I think the argument that it would discourage new construction is rather disingenuous; This will not discourage development, but rather encourage a higher quality pattern of development.
I would personally encourage city council members (some of whom I know read this blog from time to time) to back the staff’s original plan. The city as a whole simply cannot afford to grow indiscriminately; we must strive for a sustainable model of growth that will position Fort Worth strongly in the new economy. A region blanketed in poorly-planned hinterland communities will not cut it.
(And I have to give some rare props to Carter Burdette, who in response to the lowball compromises of the developers, realtors, and mayor, proposed an even HIGHER fee structure. Way to stand up for your constituents, Mr. Burdette!)
Tags: Carter Burdette, city council, Mike Lee, Politics, star-telegram, Transportation
3 Comments, Comments or Pings
John Peter Smith
One thing needs to be said. The city itself has created this situation. The city has been extremely aggressive about expanding it’s borders over the last few years, often through involuntary annexation. A safe, adequate transportation system is a basic city service. If the city couldn’t provide basic city services to the “hinterlands” then why did they annex the land in the first place?
May 1st, 2008
Bernie
JPS- Thanks for your comment.
I have to tell you, I’m not a fan of forced annexation either. That’s probably one point on which we agree.
But, I don’t think the fact that the city pushed for annexation means much in the argument for or against impact fees. If the city annexes a piece of land that is not densely developed, then a safe and adequate infrastructure isn’t as complex as would in a sea of McMansions. They can provide it with the tax base they’ve annexed.
My point is that if a developer wants to overwhelm that infrastructure with a glut of antisocial houses with garage doors where the front porch should be, then they should have to help bear the cost of upgrading the streets, drainage, etc.
May 1st, 2008
John Peter Smith
Leaving aside forced annexation, in most cases the city is fully aware of what is proposed for land a developer requests to be annexed. Since city annexation brings city taxes, developers don’t request annexation until they need to connect to city water and sewer. By that time they have a clear picture of what they want to do with the land. Most voluntary annexations are accompanied by Concept Plans, Zoning Requests, etc. If the infrastructure is being overwhelmed with a “glut of antisocial houses” the solution is simple. The city could simply decline to annex the land. Without city water and sewer, it would be impossible to develop the land economically with the glut you mentioned.
My main point is that it is rather disingenuous for the city to aggressively stretch its reach into five different counties then come back and say “OMG we had no idea we would have to provide city services to this area”.
May 3rd, 2008
Reply to “Transportation Impact Fees: What do you think?”