Is It A Victory … or a Strategic Withdrawl

ALL THAT GLITTERS…

Given that it’s the end of the year and other factors, such as limited County Councul “legislative” sessions (and the endless debate on “fairness” of the impact fee that developers will surely demand), it will take at the very least several months to implement an impact fee — and during that period we should be able to get state legislation for an excise tax.

In short, there’s good reason to keep the moratorium until the General Assembly has acted on the excise tax.

And, sports fans, it ain’t over til the fat lady (VOICE) sings, as Don Coffin once said in regard to the County’s former “transfer tax” on deeds. No doubt Dandy Don and his fellow musketeers (Plummer & Palmer) will soon be in our faces once again to try to defeat any new revenue source.

If I bought property in Salisbury and the city and county both raised taxes before I moved in, I would still have to pay the full amount of the increase.

Therefore, it is only fair that projects already in the pipeline should have to pay any new impact fees or excise taxes.

Great point!

Now you people need to quit picking on me because you know I won’t settle for an APFO and an impact fee. It will stop builders in their tracks and I won’t get my kickbacks. An impact fee is to restrictive and I won’t be able to get my pet projects passed. I told Mr. Ruark at my last planning commission meeting to get the other builders to push for an excise tax and to help get the revenue cap lifted. I only voted to stop the Hearne Annexation because Mrs. Truitt put me on the spot and then I took the opportunity after the meeting to tell her group to push for a rate cap instead of a revenue cap. You know, give a little take a little. If you all keep picking on me, I will get Matt C. to write another letter for me. And my buddy is not Mr. Mumbles, he is the Honorable Mumbles.

Ya know, you probably oughta quick pickin’ on Mr. Long. I can’t say as I know him, but a gal up on these things told me he gave an ear to learnin’ about APFO’s and impact fees. Must’ve done some good, ’cause I heard he stood up for impact fees at the work session.

I don’t follow all this quite as close as some of you folks, but seems to me if a politician is willing to change his position on something in response to gettin’ some eddie-cation and to what citizens want, then you oughta water that plant so it’ll grow.

Seems a far sight better than what city folk are gettin’ out of the carnsarned Salisbury council. Well, except that Campbell lady. More I see of her in action, the more I wish she’d run for President.

–CD

There would be no reason to have an impact fee if we have an APFO for schools. The APFO would stop all new residential development for the next 10 or so years until a new or larger school is built or until our schools are at under capacity. So what would be the purpose of an impact fee that would be collected if no more residential developments could be approved, per an APFO? (that is unless it’s a retirement village).

The developers do support new fees on development; excise taxes, increased transfer taxes, and to allow new construction to be added to the tax base which will increase overall revenue.

If the developers are willing to accept these new fees, and they are, then why do we also need an APFO that would hault all new developement? Do we really want our city to go backwards and have negative growth? No, just responsible growth.

Impact vs. APFO, I do not think you understand what an APFO is or does. Where do you get the idea that an APFO stops all new residential development???

The APFO is not something to fear, unless it’s ridiculously written. Take a look at a variety of other areas with APFO’s and you will see they are not the same. The best APFO’s are guidelines aligned with impact fees. Do some more research to alleviate your anxieties. More than schools are at risk: public safety, EMS, roads/traffic, the environment, etc.

An excise tax is needed, too, but carries another layer of approval (state level) before it can be implemented, at earliest in July 2006, and it’s still a guess whether that approval will be obtained.

Transfer taxes are an option, but not a great one unless they contain PROPER exemptions and loophole closings since they can put increased burden on existing taxpayers who have already been paying to support development from which they do not benefit.

Please don’t buy into hyperbole — the only thing that will truly halt development is a full moratorium, and what the county passed is only partial and temporary to prevent more development that does not pay for infrastructure. Much is already approved far enough out that a temporary slowdown is not going to create a negative impact — unless certain parties want to twist it do so to say, “See, we were right.” Citizens are already bracing for such, so to do so will only give the development community a big black eye.

What’s needed is quick action on a package of approaches. It’s what is being done successfully in other areas of the state and around the country. The quality of life that yields is ultimately to the benefit of developers who will want a steady stream of customers who want that quality of life, not just an overdeveloped place to stay.

Keep your eye on the big picture.

Resident, you definitely bring up good points, and I will be the first to tell you that I, nor 99.9% of the public do not fully comprehend all the intricacies of an APFO.

Here is an excerpt that I have taken directly from the definition of an APFO. “Proposed residential developments must get an adequacy permit before they can develop. The adequacy permit is determined by comparing the existing and expected capacity of the schools or water/sewer in the area with the number of approved lots. When a residential development is denied an adequacy permit, it is placed in a queue until additional school or water/sewer capacity is available.”

The way this reads to me is that any person wanting to build will not be able to as long as the school(s) in that district are at over capacity. Am I interpreting this wrong??

I have done “some” research on other MD counties. In one of our counties a builder has to plan 7 years ahead of time in order to build new homes because the APFO in that county says that you cannot obtain an adequacy permit if the school(s) in that district are at over capacity. It then goes on to say that if in 7 years additional capacity has not been created you may then have a permit to build. Maybe this is one of the counties that you mentioned that do not have a well written APFO, but it sounds very similar to the definition I quoted above.

I agree that the excise tax will be a challenge, but the only reason it hasn’t passed previously is our Senator will not support it unless the County Council has unanimous consent. I think the council, with a lot of work, will sway towards consent if everyone supports it, including the builders.

The options that the builders/developers created is not a perfect solution as neither is an APFO, but it shows that they are willing to work toward a solution that would put us in a better place in the future. If we can all come together and get over our negative feelings about builders and how they do nothing but harm to our area, then we will all be able to agree on a workable solution.

You also say that existing tax payers are already paying for development that does not benefit them/us. This simply isn’t true and you should surely agree. Have you shopped at Barnes N Noble, Kohls, Old Navy, Marshall’s, or have you dined at Outback or Panera Bread? If so, then you, I, and all the other tax payers have and will continue to benefit from development. And yes, increased traffic does come along with all of this, but I am willing to deal with it if I only have to travel a few minutes from my home for great dining and shopping.

The lack of policy to protect what makes the Eastern Shore and Salisbury special and the lack of political will to remedy that problem is the enemy, not the buildres. However, by agreeing that we need quality not quantity and by helping to support an APFO and impact fees, excise taxes and other tools to create a fair and balanced system where growth is actually paying for growth builders and developers have an opportunity to be part of the solution. As for your shopping habits…I prefer to buy a bike at Bike Sport or Salisbury Schwinn, clothing from Wear It Again, appliances from Shore Appliance, dine at Vinnie’s, Market Street, Green Turtle, or other locally owned restaurants…it supports our community and the dollars spent there recycle through the local economy many more times that a dollar spent with a national franchise.

I prefer to support the builders, developers and slum lords who financed my campaign. Who do you think helped get the Dream Team elected to the city council. Thank you Mr. Slum lord.

Impact vs. APFO — what you cited is only one version…APFO’s are, in many ways, what you write them to be. A good piece of legislation with impact fees tied in could benefit not only the schools, EMS, public safety, roads, etc., but the developers themselves in the long run by stimulating a higher standard that will attract higher dollar clientele.

Speaking of which, to each their own on the shopping and dining, but I know how retail works here. A lot of the inventory we get on the Shore is what’s “leftover” from the Baltimore-Washington stores. When I mentioned this to a gal who went bonkers that we had a Marshall’s, she told me she went out that and was disappointed to find exactly what I was talking about.

Why settle for all that “big box” chain stuff when, with the money interests we have here and those sniffing from outside the area, we could be building theme centers with culture and character? Why build the same old suburban stuff people move here to get away from? I’m not saying what you speak of isn’t bringing any value here or that current taxpayers aren’t benefitting from that, but that is commercial development which is less of a burden on the taxpayer than residential development.

As for the excise tax, yes, I hope the County Council gets together on that, too, because it’s part of the mix. I think the problem is systemic, especially with the officials of the both the City and the County. The developers are willing to be part of the solution, but I think some of their objections to impact fees (beyond the obvious profit reduction) and to the APFO is misconception of what these things are and how they work. We often fear what we do not understand, yes?

So, working together and avoiding labeling each other (I commend We Care for NOT branding the developers and hope the business community will respond in kind by not trying to slap them as “no growth,” which is not the case), we’ll get through this.

The good news is, this awful situation has really heightened everyone’s awareness that serious planning, developing a vision of what we want our area to look like, and working to find equitable funding of that vision are needed RIGHT NOW. No more ignoring it, no more vascillating on decisions for years on end.

We need some bold, perhaps imperfect, short-term action RIGHT NOW, and we need planning done quickly, but not so quickly we create another “haste makes waste” situation. We are at a critical juncture…it’s kind of scary, but also an exciting opportunity to make this a creative, most livable community.

Marv Long and the slumlords? I don’t think so. Marv was a supporter of 4 to 2 and everyone knows the County Council has no love of the Dream Team.

Criticize if you must, but criticize what’s real. Just an opinion.

Resident, your comments are probably the most educated remarks I’ve heard yet since all this started. It’s finally good to see that someone is not out on the sidewalk protesting something or bashing someone who they don’t even know. I feel like you and I want the same result and that eventually we will agree on the right solution. We need more open minded people that can come together to solve this and less people that think their solution is the only solution and want to do nothing but criticize anything else.

Maybe I need an attorney to fully explain an APFO to me, because the way I interpret it, if an APFO has an impact fee, and the impact fee was charged at the time a permit is issued we would still never be able to collect that impact fee because a builder wouldn’t be able to get an adequacy permit because of lack of A.P.F. If this is the case then how would we be able to generate funds from an impact fee if it would never be collected? You cannot collect the fee before a permit because you would be charging a builder for something he doesn’t even have the approval to build yet, and the builder can’t get a permit if the school in that district was at over capacity. I don’t know the answer? If my interpretation (not opinion) is correct, and it may not be, then there is no way that an APFO is the best thing to have.

You should also see a chart that Tony Sarbanes created that shows the difference between an impact fee and an excise tax. It shows that the excise tax is far more beneficial to the county than an impact fee because of what each can be applied to.

To Curious, guess what? I bought my refrigerator at Shore appliance and my last suit, shirt, tie, and tuxedo from Phillips Men’s Wear. My last lunch meeting was at Market St and the last time I went out for dinner I went to Adam’s Ribs. The point that you obviously missed, was that the reason we have had the commercial growth and the convenience to “also” have a cup of coffee at Barnes N Noble or watch a movie in a state of the art stadium style theater, and all the other benefits that “everyone” uses and enjoys is because of the growth not only in Wicomico but other surrounding counties have had. Yes I’ll keep eating at local restaurants and supporting local business as I always have, but I will also enjoy the occasional cup of coffee at Starbucks as you will too.