View Article
19

One of the School Board Financial Advisory Board members has come out for something called an Adequate Public Facilities ordinance (ADF) – which sounds like a good-old-fashioned impact fee.

Now that’s wrong with that?

First, it’s a hidden tax. The county slaps a big fee on developers – but whoever buys what the developer sells – like a house – ultimately pays the tax. But they never see that they pay it – because the government technically charges the fee to the developer.

In other words APF’s are a sneaky way to tax a lot of people – without them ever seeing the tax come out of their paycheck. Taxes ought to be billed to the people who really pay them so they know what government is costing them. That’s the best way to hold taxes down.

Second, APF’s can be implemented and raised by local governments at will. They don’t need the legislature’s approval like many other local tax increases. They don’t need voter approval like a bond.

Can you imagine Mayor Meeker with that kind of taxing power in his hands? Lord knows what he’d try to build downtown to go with the Convention Center, hotel, supermarket and restaurant he’s already building with tax funds.

It may sound good – and in the short term some politicians will make hay – by saying let’s sock it to the developers. But if the politicians really want to raise taxes what they ought to do is say, ‘Let’s raise taxes,’ and tell us how much rather than sneaking in the back door with hidden fees.

Posted in: General, Raleigh
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (1) RSS comment feed |

Comments

Carter Wrenn
# Carter Wrenn
Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:49 PM
1 Comment »
Why not set a limit on how many permits for new home construction will be issued, based on available infrastucture at the time of the request. As the number of homes being built (demand) goes up, and existing housing becomes less available (supply), the value of each unit goes up, raising the property taxes on properties that have accrued value for their owners (equity), while producing more taxable income for schools (revenue). If other communities want to overwhelm themselves with cheap 3500 s/f homes on .15 acre lots that do little to generate revenue, and expand endlessly into the treeline, so be it! Perhaps we could sweeten this pot a little with some tax incentivews to those communities that put such practices in place! Woe to those that do not!

Comment by Daryl Baker — January 25, 2006 @ 2:27 am


Post Comment

Only registered users may post comments.
Blog by Snyder Interactive : Copyright (c) Talking About Politics   :  DNN Hosting  :  Terms Of Use  :  Privacy Statement