Planning Commission On Board
December 16, 2005 by Publius · 23 Comments
Filed under: Development, Education, Maryland, Wicomico Politics
Filed under: Development, Education, Maryland, Wicomico Politics
from We Care -
The Planning Commission has recommended that the Wicomico County Council adopt impact fees, excise taxes and an APFO.
Remember, County Council meets on December 20th. Let’s see what happens.
Sphere: Related Content
//END Quantcast Code
Its the right thing to do(impact fees)With more development comes more strain on the infrastructure,roads,schools,sewer,etc.Why should the already overburdened taxpayers foot the bill while the developers get richer?
Rather than let all thess new untis inwithout funds to help offset the growing infrastructure needs, what about an increase in the cost of an occupancy certificate? That could apply to all new unoccupied units and we wouldn’t be as far behind. It would also help to spread the responsibility. Does anyone know if that could be done? It is not meant to be a substitute for the other solutions that have been mentioned.
I’m starting to have a problem with comments like pbgolfz’s. To me, if a developer is getting rich that means they’re building something that is acceptable to the public and that they have knowledge of how the market is working. It’s a sad fact of life that local governments will always sweeten the pot somehow to get their sites developed, for it means more money to the governmental entity. A site with 800 units on it brings in a lot more money than a field with a decrepit building.
The trouble I see in thinking that all these additional fees are a panacea is this:
1. Government raises fees to developers. It’s within their right to do so, they were duly elected. And the public demand seems to be in favor of it.
2a. The developers have two choices. They could decide that the initial additional capital outlay makes the investment less worthwhile and they find another place for their money (growth moves elsewhere,) or
2b. The developer decides to go ahead with the project and marks up the price charged to buyers to maintain a suitable return on investment.
3. The buyer, in turn, has to make a similar decision. And it’s possible that little extra tacked on to the price of the house or business puts it out of their reach. Or, they can afford it, but it’s a few more dollars out of their wallet that could be spent or saved in the area otherwise.
So who loses out in the end? The buyer.
The developer’s not going to make any less money on the deal.
The government is the winner in the scheme as their coffers swell. But unfortunately I’ve seen through my experience that all government wants to do with money is spend it foolishly, rather than give a break to the taxpayers and/or saving for future expenses (both can be done.) We see how much whining and gnashing of teeth there is about the revenue cap in place here.
So the people who benefit the most are the ones who weren’t farsighted enough to realize that growth will come and they need to prioritize their capital spending to account for it.
There’s a lot of people who complain that there’s too much growth, and that the “come-heres” should go back to where they came from. Well, I ain’t leaving. Disclosure: yes, I’m a “come-here” and my paycheck depends on development in the region.
But ask yourself: would you rather live in an area where people want to come to or a place where people want to leave from because there’s no opportunity and no growth?
Hey Michael:
Thanks for the Eastern Shore Builders Association view of things — what Bush, Senior, once labelled “voodoo ecomomics,” but you forgot to call the rest of us “no growth” advocates and all the standard stuff by ESBA — “grow or die,” etc.
In point of fact, what we want and need is controlled and somewhat more limited growth. 800 plus units at the old mall is absurd. What is happening is that the current owner, who will flip it immediately upon rezoning, will make a fortune.
Builders survive with impact fees, etc., elsewhere. In Salisbury, the mayor and her pals (and tthe last mayor, too) have controlled things — will no real criticism from the Daily Times, and the residents pick up the tab. If an impact fee had been in place since 1990, we would not have to borrow much for the sewer plant work and raise the rates to cover the debt.
WOW
After recommending approval of the plans for the Hearne property (468 units) and old mall site (800+ units) the P & Z Commission really cares.
Most of our development atrocity starts with this august body.
SALISBURY MALL SITE PLAN
At this link:
http://www.brokerpost.com/Commercial/pdf/Salisbury_Site_Plan_22.pdf
This is the version with the proposed hotel (now kaput) near the Glen Avenue-Beaglin Park Drive intersection and just 650 units (now 820+)
The curved street running from Glen Avenue to Mt. Hermon Road is St Albans Drive (relocated somewhat).
WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT, TONY?
Items on the Wicomico County Council’s agenda for its meeting next Tuesday (Dec. 20), beginning at 10 AM at the Civic Center (Midway Room):
“Salisbury Mall”
“School Funding”
“City of Fruitland Annexation Request: Warrior Avenue/Mills & Taylor”
and lot’s more to be worried about - see the agenda at http://www.wicomicocounty.org/council/Agenda/AGENDA.htm
Leavin’ Soon - Can you post a link to Brokerpost.com with the old mall link. This is a .pdf and doesn’t load very well, or are they like the Hearn property folks, and when the public found the listing they took it off? What is the price they are asking once the “PDD” is approved at 16+ units per acre plus commercial space?
Mr/Ms Curious:
Sorry, but I can’t help. Call the Brokerpost office for all these things — or the mall’s owner (Mr. Natelson) — you can get his number from the City.
While I would love to beat up on these guys as much as anyone, the BrokerPost.com listing is for some retail pad sites, a condo site and the “Active Adult” site.
This isn’t the same as the Hearne deal where they were trying to flip the property. This isn’t uncommon for a development like this.
Well,Michael,to answer your question I would rather live somewhere where I dont have about 200-400 neighbors squeezed into a parcel the size of an average city block-been there,done that.Growth is great,but only where there is room for it.Alot of the problems plaguing Salisbury and other towns of its size is unchecked growth.I dont think all developers are evil,I just think that they should accept impact fees as a part of doing business with municipalities…
duvafiles has established a temporary address, pending resolution of transfer problems, @ http://www.duvafiles.blogspot.com. Many thanks to all bloggers and readers for their support.
Here’s an interesting “Grapevine” from today’s Daily Disgrace; what’s the story on the project on Riverside Drive that it discusses?
JUST SAY NO. I don’t understand how Wicomico County Planning and Zoning Commission members can fail to see the damage they are causing by allowing the rapid and continuous development in our area. The projects they are contemplating for approval in the Riverside Drive area will cause an environmental catastrophe, a traffic hazard and further hardship for schools. Start rejecting developments.
Publius - Would you agree that rezoning to a PDD with 16 units per acre plus commercial will increase the value of the property, since higher number of units means higher profits?
Publius–Would you agree that getting $l9.8 million tax deal from the outset will enable the developer to have a “leg up” from the git-go ? And as far as “active adults”–yes, that’s what all the developers are saying now to deflect the issue of school overcrowding when they pitch their plans for approval. However, a letter in the P&Z file of the mall case states that 366 school-aged children are projected to come from the mall project and both Chipman and Wicomico High are at capacity now. The site, I think, is a good match for a project similar to the one Natelson is proposing, BUT THE DENSITY IS FAR TOO HIGH. Natelson has used everyone’s (most especially the City’s) desperation mode of needing to make the mall building go away to his advantage in getting everything (AND EVEN MORE)that he asks for.
Don’t misunderstand me. I am in no way defending the tax deal nor any other portion of the development. I was just stating that they were not trying to flip the property (which was inferred in several comments).
If you go to BrokerPost.com’s home page and then go to the actual listing it is clear that they are selling parts of the property for development. This is normal. The master developer does not normally develop each and every parcel within a development like this.
By their own admission, only a relatively small part of the whole development is slated for “Active Adults”. They are also selling a site for the condos (not for “Active Adults”).
I just think that people opposed to the development should attack them on the issues that have merit, such as the density, the preferential tax treatment, the impact on the schools, wastewater, roads, etc.
The fact that they are selling portions of the property to be developed by others isn’t really that important. While I hate to bring up Hearne again, that situation was different because those guys stood up and said repeatedly that they were natives and not “some developer from the Western Shore” while they were trying to sell it to out of town developers. While it is certainly their right to do so, it hurt their credibility.
Hit them where you can do the most damage. Schools, roads, and DENSITY.
Micahel, I don’t think you understand the economics, government role, or marketing of this.
1. The government can’t just do “anything they want” with impact fees: the fees must be used specifically to the purposes for which they were collected.
2. You can complain that government doesn’t spend wisely, but you can’t say because of that, we should never collect fees. If you have a road to drive on, a school for your kids to go to, etc., then the government is doing something right, even if they aren’t doing it the most cost-effectively. If anything, the impact fees ensure that the money is going to the most needed things.
3. The buyer is the loser? The buyers that these developers are talking about are people who can well afford these things, who do not currently live here. You don’t think they’re building these houses for folks around here? Further, many of these people would rather spend more for better than getting packed into those units proposed for the old mall. And if there is insufficient infrastructure, they will abandon those purchases or not come at all, then you either have blight and a housing bust, or a housing bust then blight.
4. You cannot cry out for the taxpayer, Michael, and at the same time oppose fees for developers who will pass them on to buyers. If the buyers won’t come, then developers will need to settle for less profit by dropping the prices to attract them. But if you say taxpayers are already burdened, then how will not getting developers to pay for growth while they profit by it going to help the taxpayer?
Your logic eludes me.
We can do better than this. But we need leaders who don’t say “yes” to every development that comes along. We need higher standards. Why settle when we can have the best and grow in a beautiful way?
Resident,that was beautifully said-you captured in words what i was thinking-there are too many vacant housing properties as it is,to create more
Publius, please pay attention:
Brokers in the ‘Bury say that the mall owner has already flipped the residential portion of the Salisbury Mall project to a big builder. That’s why “Brokerpost” doesn’t have it (or no longer does).
Resident, why does my logic elude you? In the end, the buyer pays because he is the end user, not the developer. The developer is the middleman. And a successful developer would have already gauged how the market would respond before sinking dollar number one into his investment. I’m not saying that all these things are foolproof, one can look at the Captains Cove area down in Virginia as a project that was not very successful as envisioned.
Look at it another way. If GM has to pay their workers another dollar an hour because of their union contract, they’re not going to keep the price of their cars static. The next chance they get (say, the next model year) will be their opportunity to cover the increased costs and maintain a profit. So it is with impact fees, they’re built into the price paid by the buyer. Granted, that price is flexible due to market conditions so your argument holds a little weight (GM is a good example of that too - they can’t hold an increased price with the market conditions, which is why they’re losing money.)
And even if impact fees are set for a particular use, in turn that frees up tax money to be used elsewhere. It’s unfortunate that the “elsewhere” does not seem to be other necessary infrastructure improvements that we seem to need.
Now I would hope that they’re building the housing for at least some people around here. I’m a person who would like housing and it’s possible that somebody who moves into a new development may free up a house that’s in my price range, if the development itself doesn’t address it.
But I will definitely say that the former mall area is WAY too densely packed, now that I have seen that plan. Those would be places I have no interest in, since the units that are most likely the “affordable” ones are smaller than where I live now. It is a site that would be served better by fewer and larger units - however, that does add to the school burden and I can see that particular point.
My argument actually started out as a “class envy” argument…people begrudging developers because they’re wealthy. I don’t do that because I have some insight on the risks they take. And I still have to disagree that anyone but the buyer is the person who pays the fees in the end.
But I do appreciate your points, many are well-taken. One additional comment that I would like to make is that we truly need someplace for all these additional people to work, especially white-collar professionals that would be the most likely buyers for these new developments. As I asked before, would you rather be in an area people want to come to or leave from?
I think we would all ratehr be in an area where people want to stay and be proud to call home. As we have allowed growth without fees to pay for the impact of the growth, there have been many consequences including the existing taxpayers bearing the burden. Our infrastructure and services have not been able to keep pace. This makes Salisbury less competitive. All the while, the developers are coming here becuase land is cheap, relatively speaking and we don’t have fees. I have overheard conversations that the developers can’t believe we don’t have APFO and fees. We need high quality homes and developments, we need inclusionary zoning so that those who don’t want to include homes at prices that working people can afford will support a larger effort for that purpose. We also need funding to develop the additional infrastructure. It costs money, and the developers are gaining huge profits by having their properties annexed and rezoned, which allows much higher density. They should be paying their fair share. They will pass it on the the buyer, but then that person will have invested in the community in support of services and infrastructure just like everyone else.
Very well said Curious!
Michael, I agree that the buyer pays the costs, that the developer passes them on. We are in agreement there.
Where your logic eluded me was your concern for the taxpayer. You cannot have infrastructure if SOMEONE doesn’t pay for it. Now, should ALL of that burden be upon the CURRENT taxpayer, or should it be shared by the end-buyer of new homes, via the “middleman” of the developer?
Yes, indeed, impact fees free up money needed elsewhere. If you have problems with HOW that money gets spent and on WHAT needs, then you need to become involved and lobby your local legislators or work to replace them with people you feel spend wisely. To say “don’t do impact fees because freed-up money will be poorly spent” is the logic that eludes me. You can’t stop collect taxes or fees because of misappropriation. That’s like trying to fix a car out of gas by removing its wheels.
Again, the new annexations and developments are NOT intended for current population — that is why this is called “growth.” And if you are waiting to buy an existing home YOU can afford, be advised that you will likely be up against an investor landlord for it — and you will likely lose. The developers have said they are interested in building homes for people like you because the profit margin is too small.
It’s not about “class envy” for me, Michael. I’ve been blessed to know some fine, very wealthy people who made their money without having to subject the needs of others to make it. This is about fairness — the equity of equity, if you will. They made their donations to the community not just through tax write-offs from their profits; they also settled for less profit in the short term that created a better environment for all, paying off in more profits in the long term. Not a bad business or social policy, in my opinion.
People want to move to a high quality of life, not just a place. Your own recognition of the problems with the old mall are on target. I don’t know who that developer’s market research consultants are, but if this is what they are advising, they missed the mark badly.
Keep studying the issue, Michael. We may not agree on all points, but your take on the old mall shows you’ve got a gut feel for what is really happening. Hone up on the economics and governmental issues of it all, and you may find yourself with a different perspective.