>>That's what the bureaucracy says, "we need more money to approve your (insert whatever you need most here, lots, home construction plans,
water, oxygen)".
I don't go for the blanket statements that all gov't is a waste, nor on the other extreme that gov't plans should control everything. I think that author's point is they're not approving as much residential development because they want commercial, which pays more towards the police, fire, etc. services that the new development brings. That's the story as I've continually heard it. Not just to cover the actual fees of permit approval.
Having been to many cities in Nevada with their tacky strip malls and endlessly blinking casino lights, I'll pay more for the semblance of aesthetics found in Bay Area planning. I don't know Bullhead City, but does it have to deal with the levels of congestion, pollution, crime, and myriad other complexities of a larger urban area ? And does California have Nevada's gambling revenue to draw upon ? Where to draw the line is the question, and I don't support extravagant waste any more than you do.
Yep, fees are higher in CA, probably too high. Often longtime homeowners' NIMBYism is another factor in limiting building and driving up costs too, which is why I favor lower impact in-law units and urban infill over filling in all the open space.
A prop. 13 limit is a decent idea, but the implementation is way distorted. I benefit to some degree, having purchased in the early 90s. But not like the longer time owners who now are completely free riding. I'd support leveling it off to make it fairer for all, even if my rates go up, while keeping the overall take the same. It would be better for the populace as a whole, and for the long term. Those against modifying prop. 13 always bring up the scare mongering tactics that all caps would be lifted and taxes would go to the sky, not considering that just modifying how the windfalls are now applied within the overall revenue limits makes sense.
It's not all about builders' fees. Cities fight for new commercial development over residential, partly because the tax base from new residential may barely or not even cover the costs of the services they require (or so they say). Fiscalization of land use. Prop. 13 has had a big impact on that. So fewer homes get built. Let's see how the state budget crisis further impacts this. And older businesses are among the biggest beneficiaries of prop. 13, because of their lower rate of ownership turnover.
We're talking about applying prop. 13 type limits more evenly, not about lifting all limits on their revenue.
Frankly, I see little short of pitchforks and torches that will change Washington either. Big money has it sewn up. |
