Inclusionary Zoning

[dtkmelissa]

Um, you can certainly argue around the edges about development fees, but there is absolutely no reason why I should be paying for new parks, roads, schools, and utility servicing for a new development, nor why the people moving into new development should not have to pay.

To the extent that public services are required in order for new development to exist, it’s perfectly reasonable to charge the new developments for the expansion of said public services.

I wouldn’t be surprised if development charges in older areas of the city were too high; after all, the services all exist already. On the other hand, as the city densifies, eventually sewers will have to be replaced with bigger sewers (for example) so it’s not unreasonable to collect a bit of money from each new development as it occurs so the money will be there when the replacement is needed.

I think that if the public was forced to equally pay for new public goods, we would make better decisions. Even if you don’t use a park or road, it’s still public property and we might make more sustainable investments if everyone was actually invested in their creation.

I don’t see this as any different than paying for a new hospital or school I might not end up using. It’s owned and paid for by everyone…

I tend to agree with Bravado and Dan on this one. I'd also want to see no DCs on non-profit housing as well. In regards to city-building, I get worried when we say only new residents should have to pay for something that benefits the city as a whole. New parks, libraries, streets, etc generally make our community as a whole better, and therefore something that we should all pay into (through taxes).