|
|
|
Comments Please review our Code of Conduct rules before posting a comment to this site. Report Abuse, please include specific topic and comment for the fastest response/resolution.
Posted by: Jeff - January 22, 2008 10:18 AM
I am concerned that people do not realize as they call this a fee for developers.Wich is who pays it directly. but the home owners and owners of bussniss complexes end of paying it.So when they push for this to be passed they puch it to the developer but do not tell people that they will all pay it if they buy a new home?
Posted by: Monte Miller - May 09, 2008 01:08 PM
Well, here it is just May 9 2008 and I am already seeing an abuse of this new "Tax". The Gervais school dstrict is stating that I will have to pay this fee to replace and EXISTING residence in the district. The new home has the same number of bedrooms as the old home and as a matter of fact is being built for the owners of the esisting home. There will be absolutly NO IMPACT to the school district but they say that the legislature did not specifically exclude the replacement of existing dwellings so they are going to apply the tax. What next? Note: This blog posting has been closed and is no longer accepting new comments. |
Well, I agree that there is some overcrowding going on, but additional residential construction may or may not affect school student populations. On the other hand, creating additional tax lots WILL result in more property tax collected. I see this as a disincentive to build new homes in certain areas where the tax is implemented. In effect, this is short sighted: Trading potential future tax property dollars that will be rolling in forever to get a $2K or $3K right now.
Given this lack of being able to 'look ahead', there's this sinking feeling the money will be used for whatever purpose the schools see fit rather than the actual long-term investment in infrastructure, despite the fact that this is the argument being presented.