Comment Up
The Op Ed piece in yesterday's Post was very interesting and although it was about the sales tax, the author expressed my sentiments on who should pay for infrastructure for private development. The question is, why should the tax payers pay the bill? This is what we are doing in Lake Worth at the Park of Commerce...a Scott Maxwell idea.
A novel idea: Require developers to finance this infrastructure before
their projects are built. It could be in the form of a bond that would
be paid off over 30 years. In other words, require Northlake Boulevard
to be eight lanes, from Seminole Pratt-Whitney Road to the Beeline
Highway, built on a bond tied to the new project.
Read this Point of View in yesterday's Palm Beach Post.
5 comments:
in other countries when a developer builds--they pay the taxes up front for the value of what that property will sell for
Wow, excellent article and very well stated. And the above comment is great as well. Kudos to the Post for printing this, they seem to be moving a bit closer to being a free press which is so sorely needed.
In many other areas developers pay for infrastructure and schools before development is approved. But in other areas we don't rely so heavily on property taxes, i.e. most other states have income taxes. Here the powers that be bend over backwards to get the property taxes. But then we turn around and spend more in taxes to support the developers, do we really come out ahead? Turning to a sales tax means the poor and working class end up paying more in taxes, not fair to them.
First off, this isn't just any other country!
Secondly, your position is preposterous... Name at least 3 countries that do this please.
What you are positioning is that some govt agency speculates two years out what is now a piece of undeveloped dirt is going to be a valued at after a builder constructs a property that they don't even have a permit for and haven't turned the first blade of dirt.
What happens if a) the builder decides to build something else b) the land owner resells the land c) the market crashes (again) and the property is mothballed for a decade d) the property sells for 50 percent less than expected as a fire sale
Please by all means show your backup, because the math doesn't add up
I don't understand the Northlake example can you explain it better for me… Here's my disconnect... Who do you propose to pay for infrastructure improvements now and the bond issue is for 30 years when right now a lot of the undeveloped land is just that raw land and might not get developed for another day 15 years... With the Vandevelde property starting in year 16 start paying their 1/30 share of the bond issue… You still left with the gap at 15 years for that piece of undeveloped property
Post a Comment