Quote:
Originally Posted by K-133
I'm all for rezoning but the city (i.e. you and I) should get a piece of the pie, otherwise what's the point other than to fill the pockets of the developer and to have something pretty to look at?
Its a mutually beneficial arrangement and the benefits should be appropriately shared.
I don't particularly like Dianne Holmes, and her numbers are probably bonkers but fundamentally she is right about this.
|
Don't get me wrong guys, I'm not questioning that the city shouldn't get something in return. What drives me bonkers is her BS numbers used to back up her argument. (have their cake, and eat it - fine, just not the extra bit)
The city is getting a hell of a lot more in return than the piddly numbers coming from the Holmes camp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0nkyman
The city services the land, provides water, sewer, garbage pickup, police and fire protection. The developer has squat without the existence of the city around it. It is completely justified for the city to get section 37 benefits. And as much as I support good planning and correctly done densification, I also support bleeding developers as much as is economically viable for community benefits.
|
Also, lets not forget - a large tower with several hundred units provides a monstrous increase in tax revenue for the city over the previous occupant of the same land. Garbage, police and fire are paid by these taxes.
There are also development fees (albeit woefully insufficient ones) designed to cover water, sewer service expansions. (The actual water/sewer service is billed separately to residents, not part of your tax bill)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish
She estimates the rezoning is worth $150 million to the company and the city is only getting about $1.1 million for transportation and park improvements.
|
If shes so concerned about how little they got to make a park - maybe they could find some in the new taxes they'll be collecting annually they weren't getting from the parking lot that was there before.