|
George's Information and Comments Growth Impact Action Committee ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
|
|
Proportionate Share Ordinance -- George Edwards
To move to a particular topic, click the appropriate link below:
This has been introduced as an additional strategy for committee discussion:
Sun News essay submission promoting a Proportionate Share Ordinance
A developer should be required to contribute the fair share of the additional public facilities a proposed development requires. This could be accomplished with a Proportionate Share Ordinance that requires a developer to contribute in kind or financially for the proportionate share of the public facilities the development requires that would otherwise be unavailable after development.
The development’s total proportionate share would be the sum of its proportionate shares of the additional fire, police, road and school facilities it requires.
The required proportionate share contribution would be the sum of the appraised value of in kind contributions plus any financial contribution.
An Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance requiring public facilities to be adequate before development is allowed would remain highly desirable in association with a Proportionate Share Ordinance. It would not allow further development in areas where public facilities would be inadequate after development.
Extending it to make the facilities adequate where they are currently inadequate or county-wide would require even more taxes on the general population of Horry County to. Are we willing to live with that?
But you can’t, legally or morally ask developers to cure existing deficiencies. A Proportionate Share Ordinance could help resolve the dilemma. It would still allow development in an area where public facilities are inadequate if a developer pays his proportionate share of the added public facilities the development requires.
Trying to follow the lead of storm water management by keeping public facilities as adequate post-development as pre-development is impossible outside of a totally ridiculous scenario in which the developer builds the development's own required fire stations, schools, police stations, jails, furnishes fire engines, police cars, etc. and finally builds a new road from the development to S. C. 31. However, with a Proportionate Share Ordinance, general taxation, at least, would not need to be higher post-development than pre-development.
A developer might argue that he should not have to also pay taxes on the public facilities he has already contributed towards. On the contrary, he would just join the crowd. That is what everyone else is doing to pay for previous development -- in addition to the maintenance, replacement and, refurbishment costs that are legitimate tax costs for everyone.
New developments should pay their proportionate share of the public facilities they require. That is only fair. Big developments obviously would pay much more than small ones. That is just.
Click here if you wish to return to the top of this page. Click here to return to the Growth Management Tools page. Click here to return to the main comprehensive plan page. ________________________
The Sun News essay was extracted from an earlier e-mail. If you wish to better understand the thoughts that led to the essay, extracts from that e-mail follow (you will see phrases also used in the essay):
Residential growth especially has not paid for itself -- although better now that the average price of homes has gone up so much. Commercial growth doing so is questionable at best.
When I am talking about paying for itself, I am talking about paying for government facilities and services. That shortfall is what I have to pay continually increasing taxes for.
If growth of certain commerce helps the economy overall, that may or may not help locals. As I have said, the 1999 book "Better not Bigger" by Eben Fodor has tons of data indicating that commercial development frequently does not pay for itself even with respect to the overall economy-- recognizing that Fodor has a perspective and might be "cherry picking."
One might even ask what growth of the overall economy does for a person, especially a local. It might increase a local private individual's income during his earning years -- IF it is an industry for which he/she is qualified. It certainly helps construction, major landowners and newspapers. It attracts large franchise stores which is likely good for consumers, but it may drive out existing local businesses.
Fodor shows many examples in which the tax breaks given to attract businesses if given directly to the business’s potential employees would provide them many times the “pay” they would receive as employees.
And on and on. For me, continued growth just means higher taxes and a deterioration of the environment that I bought into. Personally, I would support a county-wide moratorium until our public facilities can catch up. Barring that, I want new developments to pay their proportionate share of the public facilities they require. I think this is only fair. Big developments obviously would pay much more than small ones; that strikes me as just.
An Adequate Public Facilities ordinance, if enforced, would effectively put a moratorium on some parts of the county or all of the county until its public facilities become adequate. But we can't legally or morally ask developers to cure existing deficiencies. Only new taxes on everyone or increased fees could do that. Impact fees only scratch the surface at best, especially with our onerous S. C. Impact Fee statute.
I realize that, except in the sense that further property taxes could be made unnecessary with a proportionate share ordinance, it is impossible to have a development keep public facilities AS adequate post-development as pre-development (except for a ridiculous scenario in which it could build its own fire stations, schools, police stations, jails, and furnish fire engines, police cars, etc. and finally building a new road to S. C. 31).
So impact fees and moratoriums are infeasible or politically unacceptable, and an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance applied to the entire county would require more taxes on everyone. This leads to one possibility that might keep things from, at least financially, continually getting worse for the general population of Horry County and yet allow equitable development: "Require a developer to contribute in kind (e.g. dedication of property) or financially the development's proportionate share of the public facilities the development requires that will be unavailable after development."
A developer might argue that he has to continue to pay taxes on those public facilities -- join the crowd, that is what everyone else is doing to pay for past development -- in addition to the maintenance, replacement and, refurbishment costs that are legitimate tax costs for everyone.
I believe requiring proportionate share contributions in exchange for development approval is an approach that is fair to everyone.
Click here if you wish to return to the top of this page. Click here to return to the Growth Management Tools page. Click here to return to the main comprehensive plan page.
|