To the editor:

The new Cost of Land Uses Fiscal Impact Analysis was not worth the investment. We spent $140,000 for a two-phase study to tell us residential development does not pay for itself, and to promote impact fees to pay for infrastructure needs.

The first phase says new homes are not supporting themselves at the rate of $26 a year. At recent rates of construction the study cost represents about 18 years of new homes shortfall that could have been covered.

The problem is not if housing may or may not pay for itself. The problem is we are too reliant on residential tax revenues because the city has failed to plan for its future and how to finance it for so long. The burden is now coming to rest. Over the years we failed to plan and set aside adequate reserves earmarked for infrastructure needs. We have no long-range vision of Lawrence’s future or how to finance such a vision.

What mix of residential and nonresidential development is required to optimize our future revenue needs to finance our city’s services and infrastructure? Currently about 69 percent of our tax base is residential. Residential probably should be middle to upper 50th percentile. Residential has the lowest tax revenue for its value, compared with commercial, which generates more than twice the revenue for the same value.

We do not need more unwarranted costs added to our homes, we need a broader tax base.

David Reynolds,

Lawrence