VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Thursday, February 14, 06:05:46am
Author: Christopher A. Jones
Subject: A Simple Balance
In reply to: David Jones 's message, "whole town as open space" on Thursday, February 14, 12:08:38am

Dave I've never much cared for the argument that by spending money on Land Preservation you save on taxes spent on children. It just sounds a bit 'Big Brother'ish'.

Anyway, the concept of land preservation has to be considered part of a multi pronged approach to reasonable development from both land use and quality of life perspectives.
"Open Space" only goes so far. To make the entire equation work we need to dovetail it with Economic Development, land use (zoning, if you will) and infrastructure development and maintainence. Open Space is really the three legged stool and if you over indulge politically or economically in one leg of the stool it falls.
(what a crummy analogy)

Anyway, balance is everything and as passionate, and rightly so, as you might want to be with land preservation it can't all be done foresaking everything else.
Oh and they should be good deals.

Several folks have pointed to the Krell land in Farmington....a big number to be sure but in light of what could be built there, the number works.
Phillips is a much different horse. The property will not support high density housing and would likely be used, if at all, for estate type lots, which as you know, do not consume taxes at the same burn rate as the general statistics imply. Estate type homes are revenue positive not negative....but whatever, a different debate for a different day.

Balance is the key here, if land preservation really wants to preserve (which they do, and we should) we should be doing so sparingly and with precise timing.
If the Phillip's deal gets shot down do to bad timing, bad selling or bad information, it will set back land preservation in this Town for a long time.






>"There is not enough money in New Hartford to buy all
>of the land and in any event, even if it were
>possible, that may not be such a hot idea. Can you
>imagine what the taxes will be for a town where every
>lot is open space? The few buildable properties
>available will sell for incredible prices. New
>Hartford would become like Greenwich. You wouldn't be
>able to live there, and neither would your children.
>Somebody else's children would, though, thanks to the
>Space Cadets."
>
>
>Lets look at your question. Imagine a town where there
>is no available land for sale. No land for sale means
>no additional houses, which means no additional
>children in the school system. How do imagine it this
>scenario would raise taxes? Yes it would raise
>property values because of the law of supply and
>demand, but where to you see new tax revenue being
>needed? Even if our property value went up, the need
>for tax revenue would not, so we could actually drop
>our mill rate and remain revenue neutral.
>
>New Hartford statistics tell us we pay approximately
>$138 in services for every dollar we collect in taxes
>on residential houses. Business, farmland and open
>space require very little in services, which offsets
>the $.38 difference. If all the remaining land were to
>become open space that ratio would remain constant.
>
>On the other hand any time new houses are built in New
>Hartford, we need to raise taxes on existing residents
>to pay for the additional costs of the new residents
>children.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.