Replies

You actually stated that they are not "entitled" to make "unbelievable" profits. Do you understand that farmland is no longer a wise investment in the year 2006 (we are not an agrarian culture as the Soviets were in the early 1900's) and that if it must be sold as such, then the property has been devalued by the community, yet they happily enact zoning laws to esure that their own property values remain intact.

Yes, I understand that farmland isn't a good investment. All investments are a gamble and investors cannot require that laws--zoning laws or others--be changed to guarantee them a profit. And no, the property has not been devalued by the community. The property has maintained its former value as the agricultural land it is. The developer who buys land in anticipation of building houses on it, or the farmer who plans to clean up on selling the family farm, cannot be guaranteed his profit any more than I can require that the government and taxpayers guarantee my profit on a stock purchase I make.

Also, infrastructure should not be burdened by development since there are such enormous increases in tax revenues, unless the funds are not appropriated toward updating said infrastructure. Unfortunately, what often happens is that the local governments squander the money on various school "programs" and other unnecessary projects and then cry about the burdened infrastructure and propose tax increases. That is not the fault of developers, but of the voters.

Actually this is not true. Statistics show clearly that townhouse developments, for instance, generate far more costs to a community than their owners can possibly pay in taxes. And because the cost of housing here is so high and land is getting scarce, much of the new development is in townhouse rather than single-family development. Naturally it's pretty difficult to tell a homeowner that he has to fork over an additional thousand dollars a month in property taxes in addition to his mortgage, to pay for the new schools.

Building schools, police stations, fire stations, water treatment plants, and schools cannot be said to be squandering the money. Roads, of course, are beyond the purse of any local community, and roads are paid for by state and federal government, a process that takes far longer than the speed of putting up a stick house. In any case there is not a great deal of open space left around here for road construction without condemning and taking private residences, which is a government taking nobody wants to see either.

Understand that the tax base increases proportionally to the services that are required. If there is not enough money coming in from the tax payers for additional services, then they do not "require" such services.

Fine. Tell that to the people whose houses burn down, who are the victims of crime, because they don't "require" such services according to you.

And here is a newsflash for you - developers pay taxes for as long as they own the property. Please get it through your head that you aren't forking over anything that pays for development property. In fact, if your home is modest - the developer's property taxes, which are probably much higher than those on your property, are likely contributing more to your community than you are. So you should say thank you if you choose to stay.

Land that is zoned agricultural is taxed at a far, far lower rate than residential land. Near me, 153 acres of farmland generates about half the taxes of my little lot. No, I do not thank developers.

No thanks, I like it rural. That is why I choose to live in a rural community. When it no longer is one, I'll choose another. :)

Well, how very nice for you. I too am leaving suburbia for the country this spring. But you must see that there is something inherently selfish about this attitude for both of us: the attitude is, "I'm going to be just fine, but the millions who are facing overcrowded roads and schools, crime, gang activity, lack of water, and sewage on their lawns are just out of luck." Those people have to live and work somewhere. They can't all pack up and leave and go out to the country; they need jobs and schools. We need to think about them and do some more intelligent planning. The entire DC metropolitan area is not all that different, and the crime, crowding, and traffic problems are prevalent in every county here. We can't all move away and live in the middle of nowhere. How do you expect four million people to buy food and heating gas in the middle of nowhere?

As I say, unless you live here you cannot understand what exactly it is you are commenting on. In general it may be best to refrain from offering advice about issues in parts of the US one is not familiar with.

Please explain something since I have mentioned it many times only to receive the same unrelated inane response: Why do you support zoning laws to protect existing owners' investment but not the investment of a developer? All zoning laws were created at one time. Once they are created they cannot be changed? Or is it actually that they can only be created to benefit existing homeowners, but to hell with the landowners? And if you understand that farmland is not a good investment then why did you suggest the current land should be sold as such and why should you or any other person be able to determine how a tract of land is used that you do not own or pay taxes for?

"Actually this is not true. Statistics show clearly that townhouse developments, for instance, generate far more costs to a community than their owners can possibly pay in taxes. And because the cost of housing here is so high and land is getting scarce, much of the new development is in townhouse rather than single-family development. Naturally it's pretty difficult to tell a homeowner that he has to fork over an additional thousand dollars a month in property taxes in addition to his mortgage, to pay for the new schools."

This is nonsensical. There is an increased tax base so why would a new school required to accommodates the new children cost more than the proportional cost of the existing schools to the number of current children? Why can the town even afford the school they have? Pretend that the new residents are forming their own separate town. The taxes would necessarily support the infrastructure that must be created. When it is all integrated, what changes? If no NEW services are created and only additional people added to the existing services, where is the extra cost?

Also please cite your statistics and include details. I would love to see if there are fluffy new services that are being included.

Also, around these parts roads are indeed paid for locally, with the exception of state owned byways. You clearly have enormous government waste in your neck of the woods. And I never suggested the infrastructure you listed was among the projects that drain the funding. Conversely, it is programs that most often involve government schools, fancy libraries, parks, and a number of so-called beautification projects.

"Fine. Tell that to the people whose houses burn down, who are the victims of crime, because they don't "require" such services according to you."

What? Homeowner's insurance. Charity. Law enforcement. I believe that the first one is required with a mortgage. Charity is always an option, and law enforcement is how we regulate criminal activity. Should taxpayers be responsible for all victims of everything or just those you deem deserving of such services. Let's let the private sector do what it does best. Government is rarely the most effective option and is often the most costly.

"Land that is zoned agricultural is taxed at a far, far lower rate than residential land. Near me, 153 acres of farmland generates about half the taxes of my little lot. No, I do not thank developers."

In one breath you defend zoning, and in the other you complain about it. Which is it? So the development would generate far greater revenues on that 153 acres than it does in its current state, correct? Why did you suggest in an earlier post that developers shouldn't be able to change zoning from farmland and should have to sell it as it is? Again, stop enacting endless zoning and property restrictions and everyone will pay the same tax rate. Again, a voting problem.

"Well, how very nice for you. I too am leaving suburbia for the country this spring. But you must see that there is something inherently selfish about this attitude for both of us: the attitude is, "I'm going to be just fine, but the millions who are facing overcrowded roads and schools, crime, gang activity, lack of water, and sewage on their lawns are just out of luck." Those people have to live and work somewhere. They can't all pack up and leave and go out to the country; they need jobs and schools. We need to think about them and do some more intelligent planning. The entire DC metropolitan area is not all that different, and the crime, crowding, and traffic problems are prevalent in every county here. We can't all move away and live in the middle of nowhere. How do you expect four million people to buy food and heating gas in the middle of nowhere?"

Why CAN'T they move too? There ARE schools in the country, you know. And most people who live in the country work as well. And isn't everyone responsible for their own livelihood? I'm so sick of the attitude that some have that others are responsible for their wellbeing. Suck it up and move on. There is a world of opportunity if one chooses to embrace it. Remove the posterior from the chair and do something about the bad situation one has chosen.

Also, do you think if four million people moved to the middle of nowhere, that no one would have the wherewithal to create the economic support system to accommodate an increase in the population? Do you think everyone would just say "Oh no, what do I do" or do you think a certain percentage of our population possesses an entrepreneurial spirit that would help sustain a community?

"As I say, unless you live here you cannot understand what exactly it is you are commenting on. In general it may be best to refrain from offering advice about issues in parts of the US one is not familiar with."

That is foolishness. I can read. Additionally, I have lived in sh**holes in urban settings, I have lived in suburbia and every extreme you can imagine, so do not presume what I do and do not know. I also attend town meetings, read budgets, and participate in town government. I know there is waste.
Perhaps you shouldn't comment on anything unless you have experienced it, right? How about political issues? Should you comment on the validity of welfare if you haven't been on it? Should you refrain from saying that our water should be clean unless you have experienced contamination in your water? Your premise is ridiculous. Private property rights are important and are universal.
Clearly I do not need to live where you are to see that you and many others support the infringement on private property rights while attempting to protect your own interests. Developers purchase property that you or anyone else could have bought had you created the financial self-sufficiency to do so. So you attempt to divide and conquer politically because you are less successful. Envy is uglier than greed. Try putting as much effort into creating your own happiness as you do into spewing hatred for "the rich". After all, you are on Free Republic.