From: frank theriault
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 10:23 AM, P. J. Alling <[email protected]>
wrote:
> It's the money from the developers for their reelection campaigns that's the
> only real benefit ? The economics of residential development, at least in
> New England is that the services required by the developments cost more than
> the new tax revenue generate so higher taxes for all eventually result.
I ~could~ be wrong, but I think that around here the developer must
pay for the new services to be installed in their development. Of
course, repairs and upgrades over the years are on the taxpayers', but
initial installation is part of the price of the development.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
It depends on the locale.
Around here they charge "impact fees" on the development. Those fees
don't always cover the WHOLE cost of the required infrastructure
improvements (i.e. additional schools), nor do they alleviate many of
the social costs (i.e. additional miles of stop & go traffic to get out
to what used to be the country).
Back when Road Runner had usenet servers I posted to
alt.binaries.photos.original. They'd occasionally have themes & such,
kind of like the monthly PUG themes.
One I remember was "Song Titles" - I remember it because one title I
chose to illustrate was "Country Roads".
Set out from the house to photograph a couple of old scenic farm roads I
remembered just outside of Raleigh. Sixty miles later, I was still
looking. Had subdivisions on both sides of the roads.
Every one of those old roads was buried under 4 lanes & strip malls &
traffic signals every 200 feet. Somebody moved the country while I
wasn't lookin'
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
