City commissioners are set to seriously begin tackling one of their largest campaign promises: getting new growth to pay more of its own way.
Commissioners at their Tuesday evening meeting are scheduled to begin talking about creating two new impact fees that builders of new homes would pay to help fund parks and major streets in developing areas.
"Developers are the ones standing to make a profit, so they're the ones that ought to pay the additional, predictable costs of adding new infrastructure," City Commissioner David Schauner said.
City staff members have not proposed dollar amounts for the fees, but rather are planning to use Tuesday's meeting to brief commissioners on the concept of creating new impact fees. Both fees
ultimately would create a rate for each type of living unit built in the community - such as single family homes, townhomes and apartments - based on city research that will determine how much the occupants of those type of units would use new parks and streets.
"In a lot of ways, I look at this like a use tax," Schauner said. "If I drive on the turnpike, I pay the fee; if I don't drive on the turnpike, I don't pay the fee."
The idea of new impact fees has been frequently talked about by members of the City Commission - Schauner, Mike Rundle and Boog Highberger - who ran on a Smart Growth platform. The city currently has two impact fees that were implemented in the mid-1990s that charge developers to hook onto the city's sewer and water system.
Developers opposed the creation of those fees, and several are expected to express concerns again. Ron Durflinger, president of Lawrence-based Durflinger Homes, said he had a particular problem with the park fee because voters approved a 1-cent sales tax in 1994 that was largely sold to the public as a funding source for Parks and Recreation.
Durflinger also said he opposed the fees because it seemed to be an effort by city leaders to extract more revenue out of the construction industry and homebuyers rather than focusing on growing the city's tax base.
"This community keeps talking about how little money it has, but the actions of the governing body has really done nothing to generate new jobs," Durflinger said. "It has been a lot of talk but not much action."
Schauner said he bought only half of that argument.
"Have we brought enough new jobs to town? Absolutely not," Schauner said. "But that doesn't mean that we haven't been trying and that we're still not trying."
City Manager David Corliss said commissioners need to settle several key policy questions before staff members could start developing specific fees. He said commissioners need to discuss whether the new fees would apply only to newly annexed properties or whether they also would be charged to builders redeveloping properties in existing neighborhoods.
Corliss said the commission also could decide whether it wants to create a policy that would waive the fees for new developments that are considered affordable housing, although he said a definition for that term would have to be developed.
Commissioners are moving forward on the new impact fees despite not receiving the final portion of a $140,000 report that was designed to advise commissioners, in part, whether new impact fees were needed. Corliss, though, said the first half of the study, which was received in April, pointed to the need for impact fees to cover residential construction, although it also found that the addition of big box retail stores did the most to add new taxes to the community.
Corliss said he was comfortable in moving forward with studying the issue because impact fees have been successfully adopted in many area communities, including Lenexa, Shawnee and Leawood.
Commissioners will meet at 6:35 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall, Sixth and Massachusetts streets.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
mechman (anonymous) says…
user fee????????
just another to raise housing prices>>>>>>
booog schauner & rundle NEED to leave town!!!!!!
NOW!!!!!!!
merrill (anonymous) says…
Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize the lucrative real
estate industry?
Impact fees are commonplace so why not here?
formerfarmer (anonymous) says…
"In a lot of ways, I look at this like a use tax," Schauner said. "If I drive on the turnpike, I pay the fee; if I don't drive on the turnpike, I don't pay the fee."
Does this mean Mr Schauner is going to make the streets paid for in new developments only availble to the new residents. Maybe he will set up toll boths for non residents to pay tolls to drive on the privately funded roads. I do believe that everyone will drive on the new streets, not just the residents of the development. Everyone will use the new parks.
KS (anonymous) says…
"User fees" are just another form of tax. It is the same as asking us to pay for police and fire protection when we are already paying for it in our taxes. Stop the spending! The next two years should be fun.
Solomon (anonymous) says…
What this is, is a "fine" for development; the ultimate goal of this commission.
Of course additional costs will be absorbed by the home buyer.
Will the idiocy never end?
New2KU (anonymous) says…
We recently have been looking to move to your community. There are a lot of things that we like as we have been exploring our options. However, cost of housing is significantly higher here than in other surrounding areas.
I don't understand the thought process behind the city in their user fees. Do they actually think the developers and builders will not pass these on to the end user? Come on, let's be real. This will increase the cost of housing even more and slow growth. They have got to take a different approach if they are serious about stimulating positive growth.
tony88 (anonymous) says…
Is CANCER "positive growth"?
WilburM (anonymous) says…
With more development comes more costs. The question is, "Who should pay those costs?" Do we spread out the costs over all taxpayers, thus subsidizing the developers, or do we have them pay the costs, and likely pass those on to homebuyers? But don't think that those costs will automatically get passed on. There are a LOT of spec houses sitting around, priced too high for a nonexistent market. At some point developers will lower prices and sell, because that's what the market dictates.
Let's just not kid ourselves -- development does have real costs, and policymakers, who are elected, have to decide who pays. Don't like their answers? Vote'em out.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
CITY needs to pay attention to Federal Regulation. Here is a compliance assistance document for those that are developers, and general contractors who are too greedy or too stupid to read the regulations.
Yes you have to follow ALL the regulations in this document. You are after all not in a third world country, you are in the US of A.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resourc...
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"This community keeps talking about how little money it has, but the actions of the governing body has really done nothing to generate new jobs," Durflinger said. "It has been a lot of talk but not much action."
That well has been poisoned both nationally and internationally. Business comes with its hand out with such high expectations of corporate welfare that it's a lose-lose proposition for cities.
If a city provides enough incentives to get businesses to locate there, then everyone in the city has pay the price (see the article about Ottawa couple of weeks back.)
If a city doesn't provide corporate welfare at a high enough level, the businesses just go down the road till they find some city desperate enough to meet their demands (see Ottawa.)
Lawrence in the last few years has been resisting against that extortion, which I think more and more cities will (or should) begin to do.
But self-serving developers like Durflinger need to be made to pay for all of the costs of the growth they encourage, regardless of how many businesses choose to locate here.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
is this what one could call opening a can of worms?
I see both sides kinda but I also see alot of down side to homebuyers, seems that they will get it in the end and the builder will not be out anything in the end.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
These impact fees could very well be passed on to the homebuyer, or perhaps the builder will lower their prices in order to make the sale.
And so what if they are passed on?
It's much more appropriate that homebuyers might have to settle for 3500 sq. ft. instead of 4000 sq. ft, or 3 bathrooms instead of 4, or a 2-car garage instead of a 3-car garage than it is to pass the cost of their streets and parks onto the rest of the city, which will rarely use them unless they come out to visit these new houses and their neighborhoods.
OK, Marion, I'm ready for your next post of randomly associated words.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
I believe we should increase the cost of building in flood planes in the lawrence area. This would increase the price of this house and would make it apparent that it is costs more because it is in a flood plane
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Does everyone know it costs 1 million a year for all day kindergarten?????
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Not building on flood planes would cause a decrease in the revenues for insurance companies, realitors, and tax incomes.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"You obviously know nothing about business, fixed costs, profit margins or realestate."
Actually, despite your random association of words asserting the opposite, I do know a fair amount about all of the above.
OK, get those highly trained monkeys busy typing your next post, Marion.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Your monkeys are in fine form today, Marion.
Godot (anonymous) says…
If we follow the logic of the Three Commies, we should have school impact fees for families with children; those who use the service should pay for it. After all, fair is fair.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
There should be impact fees for the construction of new schools necessitated by new development, but I expect that that would have to be taken up by the school board.
"After all, fair is fair."
Wow-- I never expected to hear those kind of words from you.
Godot (anonymous) says…
"Corliss, though, said the first half of the study, which was received in April, pointed to the need for impact fees to cover residential construction, although it also found that the addition of big box retail stores did the most to add new taxes to the community."
Does that last phrase mean that the big box retail does the most to add new tax revenue to the community, or that it causes taxation of the citizens to increase?
Godot (anonymous) says…
No, no, Bozo, to be fair, ALL people with children who send them to public schools should have to pay more taxes than the people who do not have children in public schools do. This should start with all new kindergarteners - after, new children equals growth, and we cannot have that, can we?
GOPConservative (anonymous) says…
The left wingers (pretending to be conservatives) are really out this morning working to protect the interests of their developer buddies by putting out lies and misinformation.
All these socialist developer shills care about is making sure our taxes keep increasing to support the developers' social engineering experiment in which they take our tax dollars to lower the cost of new housing and new buildings to better attract commuters from Johnson County.
They even use convoluted and twisted logic to somehow claim that if we make developers pay their own way, it will increase taxes. What? Since when? What a joke! Everyone knows that the uncontrolled and subsidized development over the past 20 years has caused all our taxes to quadruple. Who are they trying to fool with this latest line of bull?
All these developers and their shills care about is using their profit-motivated social engineering to attract more commuters by making their poorly-constructed houses attractive enough in price that people will pull up stakes and move here from Johnson County.
They don't care about the taxpayers. Their agenda is simple: Increase the profits for the developers by raising our taxes to pay for the costs.
They want us to pay for all the new infrastructure for all that ugly sprawl and then demand that our taxes rise even more to pay for better roads so all the JOCO commuters they bring in can save five minutes on their daily commute.
Anyone who is against fees to make developers pay their own way is either a developer or someone who stands to gain financially from subsidized development.
All these socialists (pretending to be conservatives) want to is to further increase our taxes in order to give more socialist pork to their developer friends, who they have sworn to serve. They certainly aren't interested in protecting the interests of the taxpayers.
To hell with socialism. To hell with developers and their sycophants who keep posting lies about the honest, decent and fiscally conservative members of our City Commission.
I hope that these socialist developer shills are soundly defeated once again in the upcoming election. I'm tired of having my taxes keep increasing to subsidize a handful of developers and and their butt kissers who are trying to get elected to the City Commission.
I hope everyone will vote for free enterprise in which development has to pay its own way. We don't need any more socialism, especially socialism that is designed to give a handful of developers bigger profits while making the rest of us have to pay higher taxes.
Godot (anonymous) says…
There is no question that, if prices of new homes are artificially inflated by impact fees/taxes, the valuation of existing homes will increase accordingly.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Lets build more townhomes and multi family dwellings. This way we could charge extra fees.
Does everyone know that all day kindergarten costs 1 mil a year?????
Amazing how a statement like that will change the direction of a blog.
Marion, you rule I love to read your thoughts
snowWI (anonymous) says…
Some of this sprawl is getting out of control. Why do some of these new houses look so much uglier than the older style houses? Maybe its the siding and windows they use. Also, planting trees around a house will reduce energy consumption.
Olathe is the ultimate example of a city catering to the real-estate developers. And we know that has led to larger increases in sprawling developments there.
merrill (anonymous) says…
"Does everyone know it costs 1 million a year for all day kindergarten?????"
Yep and the more that come the more public education will need to keep up with demand. User fees should also include the cost of elementary schools with developers setting some land aside.
The same goes for all of the other many many community services that come with residential living. Since new homes are not taxed to cover the cost of community services who do think will be asked to make it up?
Impact/user fees will not make that up but at least the rest of us finally will somewhat freed from subsidizing our very lucrative real estate industry.
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
I have no general problem with impact fees on new development, recognizing that new development strains existing government services and causes the need for additional infrastructure.
But I also grasp that impact fees with, all other things equal, increase the cost of housing, and for everyone - not just new housing. The metaphor of a toll-road is just stupid.
Whether buyers pay this cost or sellers/developers "eat" this cost depends the balance of power at a given time between seller and buyers. Right now, I'd say buyers have the upper hand - there's a surplus of inventory of houses and the odds are that 6 or 12 months forward the cost will be, inflation adjusted, lower. But merely 1-2 years ago, sellers had the upper hand during the tulip - oops - real estate mania.
Still, I do not favor increasing user fees in isolation. This City needs to be doing things to lower housing costs. They've already driven up the costs in Lawrence so high that we appear to have no net immigration into Lawrence, with absurdly high housing costs (read regulatory and tax restrictions on the supply and use of land) relative to others - Topeka, KCK, Emporia, JoCo.
Lawrence is infamous for having confused and contradictory regulations, indifferent even apoplectic city bureaucrats, and city officials who don't grasp basics from Economics 101. User fees are fine but only combined with policies to expand the property tax base, increase jobs available, and remove unnecessary and unjustified government costs from land.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"But I also grasp that impact fees with, all other things equal, increase the cost of housing, and for everyone - not just new housing."
Not necessarily. When development isn't required to pay for its own new infrastructure needs, those costs have to be paid by someone, and that is done by everyone else in the city, regardless of whether they benfefit from the new infrastructure (and they mostly don't.)
Remove that expense from everyone else, and even if valuations increase in older neighborhoods, the net effect is neutral, at worst.
Also, if developers realize that their infrastucture needs have to be included in the price of the houses they want to sell, they'll do whatever they can to reduce the price of the house and of the infrastructure costs per house-- such as smaller lot sizes and smaller houses, and more realistic profit expectations.
As GOPconservative points out, impact fees are really about letting the market work without the unwarranted subsidies.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Developers already foot the bill for the streets and sidewalks in their new developments, and the new homeowners will pay their fair share of property taxes for upkeep.
What you Bozos want is to have existing homeowners and buyers of new "unaffordable" homes subsidize the buyers of "affordable housing." Yet, the "affordable housing", which will be denser in population, will cause the greater stress on infrastructure and schools.
This proposal is so transparent in its motives, it is almost funny.
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
Bozo, I disagree (no surprise).
You are confusing community, or city, costs with the cost of housing, that is, the price, the value of a house. Heck, they're probably even itemized as such.
Impact fees increase the dollars that some buyer must pony up to buy House X. Period.
Your fantasy is that by attempting (merely attempting, you'll never fully succeed) to isolate new development community expenses to new immigrants into the city, you'll remove that burden from the pre-existing Lawrencians.
But what the Lord (or the market) giveth, the Lord taketh away.
When you've outpriced a new house, let's say a West Lawrence house, the outpriced buyer(s) do not disappear. Instead, they find other houses, often existing houses, let's say East Lawrence houses and by paying $1 more, they in turn outbid others, who in turn do unto others as has been done until them. All, until, the last marginal buyer is, quite literally, priced out of buying any house in Lawrence at all, which is a constant refrain in this town. We see evidence of this right before our eyes.
So, the net effect is that the least powerful with the least resources pay the bill. All fine to capitalist me, btw, but all you've done is pretend to work for the common man all the while getting yours for yourself at some weaker person's expense - not your imaginary all-powerful developer, who will always get his or he'll just pick up his marbles and go play somewhere else. We see evidence of this as well.
Your obsession with developers is really an obsession with new residents. Its not the developers who strain the existing infrastructure but the new people who move here, whose needs the developers serve. Since it is practically impossible and constitutionally impermissible to tack an "entrance fee" for moving into Lawrence on these people, you seek to use new development as a proxy (even though the average buyers of a new house is someone who lives in Lawrence already). And yet, new residents are a burden only because the tax base is not expanding because the city has viseral dislike for any industrial or retail employer who might (for whatever crazy reason) want to expand in Lawrence, which in turn is due to your own policies.
You're trying to square a circle where the circle is one of your own making.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Impact fees increase the dollars that some buyer must pony up to buy House X. Period."
No, they include in the price of the house the costs of the supporting infrastructure, rather than externalizing those costs onto the residents of older neighborhoods, where the infrastructural component has already been factored into the valuation of those houses.
I agree that if the subsidies to these new subdivisions are reduced, it will have an effect on the real estate landscape. But impact fees will actually lessen government policy-induced market distortions, not increase them.
Godot (anonymous) says…
The city has already commissioned such a study, at a cost of $140,000. My guess is the reason the three Kommissars are so eager to move forward with regulations before they have the full report is because they know what the report is going to say, and do not agree with it.
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
bozo -
House valuation is not made up of "infrastructual" costs. (There's no such word as infrastructual, btw.) House valuation is literally sale price. What you call "infrastructural" costs are invariable costs and don't materially influence anything. An assessment for infrastructure (a tax) can be assessed against the valuation of a house and result in a higher property tax but let's be clear: there's no change in the value of the house.
Extending the SAME pricing structure found in 99% of Lawrence to a new 1% is not the definition of a subsidy. A subsidy would require that the city underprice the cost from that experienced by everyone else. The city has not, is not, and doesn't plan to do that.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
bozo:
keep typin i am still reading your excellent posts
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Godot is the winner this time:
"The city has already commissioned such a study, at a cost of $140,000. My guess is the reason the three Kommissars are so eager to move forward with regulations before they have the full report is because they know what the report is going to say, and do not agree with it."
Very Good Godot. That is a political skill, and unfortunately the public is hip to this activity carried out by the politicos of wither stripe.
dviper (anonymous) says…
It was just over a year ago or so that posters like Bozo, Gopconservative and Merrill were whining that developers didn't pay for the streets and infrastructure in their new developments. When they were informed that developers pay 100% of all infrastructure costs directly related to the development they called posters like me, and many others liars.
Here is the truth; developers pay 100% of all infrastructure costs directly related to the new development. Included in that are numerous fees / taxes paid to the city for various items, which are usually grossly inflated. For example a 2" water meter costs roughly $1,900 but the city charges $20,000 for the water meter, an increase of 1,000%. The entire infrastructure is given to the city for free, plus all the land and rights of way for the streets. Take for example, the development of a 30 acre residential subdivision; the city will receive roughly $2.6 million in infrastructure free, plus another $2.3 million in land free. The roads connecting to new subdivisions are also paid for by the developers or adjacent land owners. Apparently, 4.9 million just isn't enough for the PLC kommissioners and their small vocal crowd.
All of these costs are ultimately passed on to the end consumer which is the new home buyer. And, now the city commission is getting ready to increase those costs even higher, which will result in higher priced homes, and the increase of all home values throughout the city, which finally ends in higher taxes for everyone.
Where's all of our ever increasing property tax money going to? Where's all the money developers and builders have paid to the city for "system development" fees / taxes (see above example for water meters) over the past 20 to 30 years? Where's all the money home owners have been paying for ever increasing water bills and sewer charges? The answer is simple, the city commission has wasted our taxpayer dollars, and is now looking to increase everyone's taxes again and again in order to continue squandering our hard earned dollars on future frivolous projects. It was just last week when the 3 PLC kommissioners spoke about increasing taxes on gasoline. They already are planning to raise everyone's local taxes on phone service, natural gas service and electric service.
What has this city commission done with all the taxpayer money? It looks like they have spent it, on frivolous items such as traffic circles and roundabouts, an empty bus system, flowers for downtown, expensive studies and consultants that they then ignored, new waterlines and sewers for downtown businesses, so called 'art' for downtown, lawsuits, vacations to Washington DC while congress is on break, etc...
If this city was run by competent business minded commissioners and city administrators, we as a city would have more than enough money for new libraries, new parks, new fire and police stations, new sports facilities, and a hefty amount left over for emergency funds.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Marion or bozo would make good county or city leaders
Godot (anonymous) says…
'Marion or bozo would make good county or city leaders. "
I do not agree. Marion and Bozo are at opposite ends of the spectrum; I like and support Marion in his analysis and recommendations, but Marion does not live in Lawrence.
Assuming they are Lawrence residents, I would eagerly jump on the dviper and Jamesaust for Lawrence city commission bandwagon.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Marion rocks.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Does anyone think lawrence is realy big enough????
we only have one wal mart
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Marion, I must say I have read many things you have posted, you have a refreshing way of pointing out the hidden words of these stories. Keep up the good work
dviper (anonymous) says…
Using rough conservative estimates, during the last 11 years, developers (via new developments) have given the city over $247 million dollars in free infrastructure. Now add in all of the land and rights of way for streets and sidewalks and that roughly comes to around $193 million and that doesn't include land given to the city for green space, nature trails and fishing ponds. Combined it's around $440 million of FREE land and infrastructure given to the city. I believe that is far above and beyond proving the fact that development pays for itself.
However, the city commission and especially the 3 PLC kommissioners believe that is simply not enough. They have spent all of the taxpayers hard earned money and want to spend even more of our money on frivolous projects like a $30 million library downtown, new homeless shelters, more traffic circles and roundabouts, more studies and consultants, expanded bus service, new tree landscape grates and flowers for downtown, sprinkler systems for downtown businesses, subsidies for low income housing, etc:
So, to fund all of these future frivolous projects, the 3 PLC commissioners will have to raise taxes and create new taxes (see impact fees). All of these new fees and taxes will eventually become too expensive thus slowing and stopping growth. This accomplishes yet another goal for the PLC commissioners and their supporters which is to stop all growth, unless it meets the subjective requirements of their new business analyst czar.
When growth stops, where will the PLC commissioners fund all of their frivolous projects and bloated incompetent local government? Well, the 3 PLC commissioners have already discussed creating a new tax on gasoline.
Lawrencians, if you want to change this situation, vote the 3 PLC kommissioners out of office in April.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Dviper:
"Using rough conservative estimates, during the last 11 years, developers (via new developments) have given the city over $247 million dollars in free infrastructure. Now add in all of the land and rights of way for streets and sidewalks and that roughly comes to around $193 million and that doesn't include land given to the city for green space, nature trails and fishing ponds. Combined it's around $440 million of FREE land and infrastructure given to the city."
NO WAY! You are insane if you believe that these infrastructure and "green spaces" are "GIVEN to the city". How much has the taxpayer had to "give to the city" for one of your stupid projects???
Remember that the Shutlz browhter had to stop, because the 'sewage infrastructure" was not enough to support that. The city does that... NO the developer.
As for the developer "giving" $440 million to the city over the last 10 years... you are simply high AND insane!!!
I don't think the total of the homes built would equal that in gross numbers.
Lets see at about $150K per house, that is 3000 homes! MUch of the buildoing was NOT homes. It was apartments. And parking lots and streets in these mondoplexs is not "infrastructure. Neither is the park on the apartment comples "green space" "given to the City".
One thing that contractors and developers do not do and that is give away money and capital.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
developers, infrastructure, city, polititians
what about the ordinary people??????????
dviper (anonymous) says…
Asbestos Are you from Lawrence? Have you lived here for any length of time? Based upon your comments, either you don't know want you're writing about or have only lived here a few years. Have you ever been west of Kasold or Crossgate? Have you heard of Praire Park?
I'm not going to attack you and start calling you names, but I would suggest that you simply look at how much the city has grown in the last 11 years. Geez, just look at a map from 11 years ago. My estimated numbers are probably on the low end of the actual number. And as far as "free green space", have you ever heard of Bob Billings, or John McGrew (developers) who gave / donated land to the city. Just search the LJW, or simply drive along west 27th or Bob Billings Pkwy, there are some big signs on the green space.
And finally, you're using an example of 3000 homes with a retail value of 150K. Get Real!!! That example really shows that you don't know what you're writing about.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Marion, there seems to be a conflict of facts here, can you please advise the real meaning of this article
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Hey, dviper, I have an idea. I think I'll "give" the city my car. Of course, it will have to remain in my possession, and be available for my exclusive use 24/7, but aren't I generous for "giving" them my car.
Whadaya think, dviper? Great idea, huh?
deec (anonymous) says…
Those new water and sewer lines downtown replaced lines that were at least a century old which were in danger of failing.
Do developers also pay for the new sewer and water treatment plants? New schools? City roads needed to access the developments? Additional fire and police protection? New fire stations?
While it is admirable that some past developers donated land to the city, at least some of that land would not be suitable for development anyway. The nature preserve running north off 15th comes to mind.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Come on, deec, don't go and harsh dviper's mellow with facts.
deec (anonymous) says…
My mistake. Its just that I loved Lawrence and lived there nearly 25 years. The ever-increasing property taxes and utility fees, beginning in the mid-80s, drove housing costs so high that lower wage workers were priced out of the housing market. We moved to KCK in order to buy a house, but the high crime rate and governmental corruption led me to move from there out to Hays this last summer. Hays is very cool; lower utility rates, a university with its advantages of access to arts, the amenities of a larger town such as many restaurants and a fair amount of retail, lower rents, rapid police response to problems, etc.
I still love Lawrence. My children were born there, and I still have friends in Lawrence. I would have moved back, but could not see any way to afford housing. So I am not unbiased about the detrimental effects of the development boom.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Thanks marion, I believe some of the people here are getting side tracked.
Hey just another bozo, did you know that all day kindergarten costs 1 million per year
just another ordinary comment
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
If anyone might be interested we could start a grass roots effort to decide the housing needs of ordinary people right here in lawrence, I dont think we need to donate cars or point fingers, lets just decide what us ordinary people here in lawrence need.
Lifelong_Lawrencian (anonymous) says…
Everyone seems to be confused about who pays for what in a new development. Let's take for instance a lot in one of the new subdivisions off of George Williams Way. The entire infrastructure associated with a particular lot is included in the price of the lot and is therefore eventually paid for by the homebuyer. This includes the sewer, waterline, street, utilities, round-a-bouts, speed bumps, traffic circles, street signs, sidewalks, street lights, storm water retention areas, sewer lift stations, traffic studies, stormwater studies, platting and other associated fees, etc. In this example, these lots are also part of a benefit district that pays specials for the next 10 years to pay for George Williams Way and its associated round-a-bouts, and perhaps future traffic signals that may be required, etc.
These subdivisions are in no way subsidized by the city as a whole. The city pays absolutely nothing. Not one penny. In addition, when a builder builds a home on a lot, he/she must currently pay an impact fee of $4,500 that is paid for with the water meter.
New homes are actually a windfall for the city. Think of it this way--the average price of a home in Lawrence is about $154,000 (call the appraisers office and check me on this if you like). The average price of a new home is conservatively about $250,000. It is easy to see that the new homebuyer already pays the lion's share of property taxes, as perhaps they should. But also consider that their infrastructure will require little if any maintenance over the coming years because it is newer, technologically more advanced, and constructed to much higher standards than older infrastructure in town.
There are streets in town that are paid for by the city as a whole like 15th street and Clinton Parkway. An interesting example is the 6th street extension which is actually a state hiway. In this case the state as a whole paid nearly half of the bill.
The additional impact fees the city now wants to charge are supposed to be for new streets like the eventual 15th street extension and for parks.
Why should the average citizen of Lawrence care one way or another about these proposed impact fees? Because they affect your property values. Anything that affects the price of a new home, whether it be the increased cost of concrete or an artificial tax created by the city, must also affect the price of existing property. These taxes also act to discourge people from moving to Lawrence, which in turn, increases our property taxes.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"These subdivisions are in no way subsidized by the city as a whole. The city pays absolutely nothing. Not one penny."
Except for all of those $millions you conveniently (and self-servingly?) neglect to mention.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Why should the average citizen of Lawrence care one way or another about these proposed impact fees? Because they affect your property values."
So if there are no impact fees, does that mean all of those things that would be paid for by these fees will just be free?
Wow, I guess there is a free lunch, after all.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
bozo, jeep in mind, we are ordinary people here in lawrence not average citizens
free lunch for all indeed
Lifelong_Lawrencian (anonymous) says…
Except for all of those $millions you conveniently (and self-servingly?) neglect to mention.
Perhaps you could give an example of the millions you are referring to?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Perhaps you could give an example of the millions you are referring to?"
To quote deec from a few posts above yours--
"Do developers also pay for the new sewer and water treatment plants? New schools? City roads needed to access the developments? Additional fire and police protection? New fire stations? "
And that list could be considerably longer, if you just look at the list of services that a city must provide.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Providing services is the job of the City."
Jeez, Mr. Rocket Scientist-- how do they pay for those services?
Lifelong_Lawrencian (anonymous) says…
Here's an example of the millions. Lawrence homebuilders build about 300 new single family homes a year. (Contrary to popular belief, this number has remained relatively steady for the last 20 years). These homes are usually built on farm land that has a value of about 50k per acre if close to town. Build 4 homes per acre at a value of 250k each. Added value of 950k. Increased revenue of about $12,600/year plus impact fees of $18,000.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Maybe the Kommissioners are hoping to fund the new library with the extra money from impact fees and subsequent increase in the value of existing homes.
Lifelong_Lawrencian (anonymous) says…
Schools are funded through the school district that extends beyond the city boundaries. These are paid for by your property taxes and bonds funded through sales tax. Fire and police are also funded through property taxes and sales tax. Do you suppose that new construction generates any sales tax for the city? Who do you suppose uses fire and police more, the new parts of the city or the old?
Sewage and water treatment plants are paid for through user fees. Check you water bill. This is what you System Development Charge is. It also went to pay for bringing our current facilities up to new KDHE specs.
Godot (anonymous) says…
"Providing services is the job of the City."
Not in Lawrence. Competing with, and impeding, private businesses is what the City of Lawrence does; improving basic services like sewers and street repair is just not sexy enough to interest our Kommissioners.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"It also went to pay for bringing our current facilities up to new KDHE specs."
That is not specs but regulations,... and it should have happened 7 years ago to comply with the SDWA, and the CWA.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Rundlebouts, Marion you get me everytime.
asbestos is there a difference in specs and regulations?? I believe they are both set up by the same type of grass roots organizations.
Ordinary people do not make specs or regulations.
deec (anonymous) says…
Marion, yes the Brass Rail is still downtown. The Fox theatre, which had been closed for some time, just reopened as a party hall/theatre/martini bar/cigar bar. They have catered food available. The lobby is the bar. There is also Gella's across from the Brass Rail, which is a restaurant and microbrewery.
deec (anonymous) says…
The Red Baron or Lion is no more, but there are a pair of bars just off campus at 7th. Since it is a college town, there is a plethora of drinking establishments. I have only been to one place, the Horseshoe I think, at the corner of 8th and Vine. I was advised that this was the "grownup" bar. Its right next to Al's Chickenette.
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
....in related matters, transfat has been outlawed in new york city. someone whispered that this is just the ticket to put lawrence in the spot light again, before the next election. we wouldn't be number 1, but we're already number 2 - if somehow this could be enacted.... calling all losers!
kooties are to be removed from beards and hair and baths are in order. free combs and shampoo (with conditioner), soap, toothpaste and bath water (remember to recycle) is available at the local free love bath house somewhere on mass street. free bicycle parking in the rear. we only want that first 10 second impression for the cameras so people will think we're normal.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Lunacy you have somehow misunderstood the article here, please let us know where you went wrong..