TxFig said:
Bob Yancy - yes, I think you are WAY off on your attitude toward impact fees.
Bluntly, there are costs associated with developments and SOMEONE has to pay those costs. It is either going to be the entire tax base (property taxes) or the developers (who pass on those costs to the people buying the homes). So either you are taxing your current residents and allowing developers to live off the government tet, or you will make them pay their fair share.
Quite frankly, I chose to live in Bryan/College Station/ Brazos County BECAUSE this is not a high urban area.
I do not want more people moving here.
More people living here makes this town LESS desirable.
If an impact fee will raise the cost of new people moving here, then by all means, yes, I am for them.
And at a MUCH higher rate that what is being charged now.
Impact fees should be designed to cover the cost of widening roads (such as FM 1179).
And drilling new water wells & building new water towers.
And building new fire stations & staffing them.
And hiring new police & sheriff deputies (and the equipment they need)
And building new sewage treatment plants
and building new landfills.
For far too long, city & county politicians have been fed a crock of lies that says "development good, m'kay". Those developers donate huge sums to your political campaigns.
... or they just run themselves (can anyone say "conflict of interest"?)
Keep Brazos County Rural.
Thanks for your feedback. I know you're in good company with this position. But I hold that it's why we're in the mess we're in with housing.
70% of the workers in College Station don't live here. They drive our roads and go to our parks and strain our infrastructure yet pay no taxes.
Young families can't afford a home here, like you ostensibly were once able to afford, because of anti-growth policies that you've espoused above.
Your infrastructure was paid for by everyone, including you. Now that you're set, you want to penalize anyone new that might want to have their shot at growing a family in College Station, or a business.
The policies you advocate require a belief that organic growth in a community can be frozen in stasis. A longing for yesteryear. You don't want change, but change is inevitable.
If we suppress our housing market as we've done, less entry level houses are built because, while you cannot force a builder to build in College Station, you can indeed incentivize them not to, as we've done.
This drives demand and property valuations sky high. Trying to eschew growth makes everyone pay more in property taxes, even when the rate isn't raised. It's happening now. It's going to get worse.
Without young families to grow with a city, bad things begin to happen at the strategic level. Legacy residents get more and more, everyone else gets less and less. A consumerism economy takes root, where retailers and restaurants and blinking lights to attract affluent consumers come in, but high quality blue, gray and white collar jobs don't.
The economy becomes a slave to consumerism, subject to catastrophic failure in sharp downturns or pandemics or ____.
Economies of cities must be diversified, just like economies of nations. Growth must be embraced and accommodated, not choked like a command economist might do not aware of the power of the free market.
Infrastructure in older neighborhoods crumbles because a replenishment of funding goes away with fewer permanent residents left to fund the demands of more people pounding a city's pavement, than actually live within it.
More MUD districts and special districts crop up as development occurs outside a city. They become suburbs of the target city while contributing to nothing but sales taxes.
Such policies invite legislative scrutiny, just like what's happening now.
Growth is a blessing. A vibrant city with young urban professionals, young families, the working class, retirees and people from all walks of life pulling the wagon together, sharing the burden, is the way to go.
I wish I could say I agree with everyone that posts and interacts with me here. I cannot. My position on this critical, strategic policy sphere could not be more antithetical to yours.
Despite this, I respect your right to that opinion. It's just one I do not share at all.
Respectfully
Bob Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
