[gitmo]

I am talking about a high growth area, you are thinking about a situation where growth is near zero. The cost per person will not go down when enough persons come in that a new facility (that will last 30 years) has to be constructed. That will cause a temporary cash-flow problem, even when costs per person, over 30 years, do go down.

I live in a high growth city. Charlotte has been growing rapidly for many years. For some reason, taxes do too. I think they should go down as the population increases.

I am not talking about raising everyone's taxes, just getting developers to "front" the money that the district will eventually get anyway. This is due to the lag between when a new house is built and when the school can actually use the money (about 3 years). "

The developer is already risking a large amount of his own capital and is being taxed and regulated heavily. To force them to fund the county's growth in anticipation of population growth is unreasonable.

[Ahban]

By what standard are you claiming it is "unreasonable"? To people who have lived in a small town all of their lives facing an influx of newcomers that might overwhelm government services it might seem very reasonable that the developers who stand to make the profits also bear the costs.

Of course, I did not even say make the developers pay it. I want to add it on to the buyer's loan amount, in exchange for them paying no property taxes the first 3 years. It is more of a way to adjust cash-flow than a long term increase in tax revenue.