Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays
The system increases rents because is reduces construction, creating scarcity.
Buildings charge what the market will bear. But they only get built when they're better investments than other planned buildings.
So construction reduces until it causes scarcity, which pushes rents back up, which gets construction going again though probably at a lower volume.
I agree that a more generalized tax is better. That wouldn't avoid disincentivizing supply.
Back to the Seattle example, one thing we do well is a voter-approved property tax levy that raises $16,000,000 per year for affordable housing. Non-profit builders use most of this, and they build a lot with it. This November we'll vote on a renewal at double the volume.
|
I likely wasn't very clear on what I was disagreeing with.
But now that I've read for detail It's making a little more sense. The impact fees are to be modest and they'll have a $/SF gross that's different for each type of development ie. office, hotel, retail, residential etc. Not a fan of impact fees but they seem set on doing it.
What makes the most sense is an increase in property taxes; Denver's are very reasonable anyway. But that will currently be limited to only 1 mill which they can do w/o a vote. It will be on ALL city/county property so a nice broad tax which is what I prefer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
Hey, at $750 per square foot I can probably afford a whole bedroom!
|
Go for a studio as you get the kitchen thrown in for free!
Threaded Mode