Oh, some of these comments. You can't argue that reducing impact fees would be damaging and then say we need to add housing as the solution in one breath. Impact fees are an economic barrier to "affordable" housing. In fact, they're mostly a sham that just equals an entry fee for the new people in town. The most equitable way to pay for government outlays is to spread taxes evenly among the entire population in a community. Impact fees create exclusionary zones. Just because you were somewhere first, doesn't mean you have the right to keep out all other development. It doesn't give you any special privileges over other folks who also need housing and should be able to live where they want just as you got to do. In fact, the largest percentage of government outlays are typically maintenance and repair. In other words, the folks who are already there. These outlays are typically spread over bonds and levies that overlap and can be 30+ year terms. Charging the developer impact fees for infrastructure that existing residents will also benefit from doesn't make sense. It always gets passed on to the home buyer in the form of thousands of dollars added to the cost of a new home. For every $1,000 in cost,, you price out 4,800 Washington families. Remember, buildings don't grow people. They don't ****. They don't use the roads. Etc. People do. People who are already there, as well as those moving in. So, an equitable arrangement means everyone pays their fair share.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
