Re: Not always joking, it seems

Seth <sethb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <fpk6jl$qu2$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> <rkshullat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>>Some of this, but also revenue concerns, at least in this area. City
>>funding here is primarily from property tax and high-density housing
>>typically has lower value per household than low-density housing. This
>>leads to lower revenue per household without an offsetting decrease in
>>cost to the city in services. The only ways to compensate are to raise
>>the overall tax rate or cut city services, neither of which are popular
>>moves. The magic terms that get nods from the city planners are "luxury
>>apartments" and "luxury condos". This is code for "expensive enough that
>>you don't lose tax revenue".
> 
> Some costs are lower: roads and sewers, for instance (less distance).

It depends. Infrastructure inside of a development is built by the
developer so the city only incurs maintenance cost, which is pretty
minor for properly constructed low traffic roads. Our previous
neighborhood was about 30 years old and the sidewalks were a larger
maintenance issue than the roads (not as well constructed). Parks,
recreation and libraries are a far larger cost than street maintenance.
Sanitary sewer doesn't impact tax rates around here since those systems
are generally separate and self sup****ting. Storm sewer is probably a
tossup. On the one hand the higher density means less area to cover, on
the other hand it probably means more pavement and more runoff.

	Robert
-- 
Robert K. Shull                           Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot
com