|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A revenue measure that will increase taxes is making its way onto the general election ballot in November 2024, with the Mountain View City Council agreeing Tuesday night that more cash is needed to pay for ambitious projects ranging from affordable housing to climate change initiatives.
The city is financially secure with enough funding in its coffers to support existing programs and services. But the city lacks the money needed to pay for critical infrastructure projects and future capital initiatives, according to a study session presented to the council on Sept. 12.
“Building the Mountain View of tomorrow, with bold initiatives and facilities that the city is advancing, will require us to continue to enhance and diversify the city’s revenue streams,” said Deputy City Manager Kimberly Thomas.
The public safety administration building, which houses the police department and other emergency services, is in dire need of upgrades and projected to cost $160 million. Other high-priority initiatives, like affordable housing, climate change mitigation, fire station rebuilds and transportation projects also are experiencing funding shortfalls, Thomas said, putting the combined figure at $175 million, which did not include an estimate for the city’s open space and park initiatives.
Assistant City Manager Arn Andrews presented several tax scenarios that could each bring in about $4 to $5 million of additional revenue to the city. While a seemingly modest financial target, this revenue could be held in reserve or used for potential bond offerings, Andrews said, citing the possibility of $80 million in bonding capacity.
Since 1973, the city has adopted five ballot initiatives to increase revenue; its two most recent tax initiatives, the business license tax and cannabis sales tax, both passed in 2018. Given the city’s historically conservative approach to increasing taxes, council members saw the Tuesday study session as a chance to consider the feasibility of a wide range of revenue measures.
The city has to be wary of putting something on the ballot that’s doomed to fail. The consensus was that a general tax measure, which requires a majority approval of 50% plus one by voters, was preferable to a special tax measure, which requires a two-thirds majority.
While all council members favored the general tax option, they diverged on exactly what taxes should be brought forward to the public. The study session presented five options for discussion: a transient occupancy tax (TOT) on hotel stays; a property transfer tax; a utility user tax (UUT); a business license tax; and a sales tax.
Council members quickly converged on the transient occupancy tax, which is paid on temporary lodging by visitors. Mountain View last amended its hotel tax in 1991, increasing it from 8% to 10%. Compared to neighboring cities, Mountain View’s rate is low, ranking at the bottom while Palo Alto, Los Altos, San Jose and Sunnyvale have rates between 15.5% and 12.5%.
There was less of a consensus around the utility tax, a 3% tax assessed on consumption of utility services that includes telecommunications, electricity and gas. The rates range between 2% and 5% elsewhere in Santa Clara County. Council member Margaret Abe-Koga expressed opposition to the tax, citing public concerns about expensive electricity rates. Vice Mayor Pat Showalter questioned whether it would be possible to parse out the UUT to increase some rates (like gas) and decrease other rates (like electricity) to incentivize alternative energy uses, a proposal that several other council members supported as well.
Council members were also split on whether to increase the city’s property transfer tax, which has been at the rate of $3.30 per $1,000 since it was first adopted in 1973. Council member Lisa Matichak expressed opposition to an increase, citing public concerns about living in an already high-cost area. But other council members were open to the idea of a tiered incremental model, similar to San Jose, which has a higher tax rate for properties that exceed $2 million.
“Mountain View might need a little higher threshold, maybe three or four (million). But something tiered I think could actually produce a healthy amount of revenue,” said council member Lucas Ramirez, adding that the city should ditch the idea if it polled poorly with the public.
Ramirez also brought up the possibility of a parcel tax on commercial office space, similar to East Palo Alto, a proposition that was not presented in the study session but was supported in concept by several other council members.
The proposition to increase the sales tax from 9.125%, received the least support from council members, with most stating that they did not favor a regressive tax. There also was some hesitation to bring forth another business license tax, given the recent passage of a similar tax in 2018. Some council members, like Ramirez, expressed support for a gross receipts tax model if it applied to bigger businesses.
To shore up support for a potentially controversial ballot measure, the city plans to engage in outreach efforts to solicit feedback from the public. It also formed an ad hoc committee and has allocated $250,000 in its budget to hire a consultant agency to assist with the initiative.
Concerned about the public reaction to the proposed revenue measure, council members also wanted to make sure that the community had a full picture of the city’s funding priorities and needs, a request that city staff also supported.
“At the end of the day, if we move forward with a ballot measure, staff wants our council to be successful, we want our community to be successful,” Andrews said. “We do have needs, and we do need the revenue. So, it’s important that we all move forward in a transparent manner, make sure that we build credibility with our community.”
I can see upgrade Police and Fire Department infrastructure
I am skeptical of Affordable Housing initiatives. Because they usually involve Robbing Peter to pay Paul. They should clearly explain how the money transfer mechanism works. The last time I looked at this, they take money from people paying full price, and use the money to subsidize (or pay down) the price of lower cost units. Maybe they have a different mechanism this time. The reason why a *clear explanation* to the voting public is needed is because some innocent people think that we can repeal the law of physics and just make some housing cheaper. There is no free lunch. Too often, the politicians deliberately obfuscate how this works so they can get the accolades while hiding where the money really comes from.
On utilities, I think the local government should stay out of additional taxes on utilities. Various forms of energy were deployed a long time ago and it is hard to change in the short term, and some people will suffer more than others. It is pretty clear where energy prices are headed without the local government meddling in it. (Once the LNG terminals in Louisiana come back online, and we
start shipping natural gas to Europe (which no longer get natural gas from Russia and the destruction of the Nordstream II pipeline, you can see natural gas prices spike wildly. We don’t need local government placing more taxes on top of that scenario. I doubt that our politicians took into consideration. One reason NG didn’t spike higher last winter is a major LNG terminal caught fire and Europe had a warm winter)
Net/Net: We are in a major inflationary cycle, where everything is going to be higher for longer. It seems a bit tone deaf to raise more taxes under these conditions. Instead, responsible government should seek efficiency and spend only what is necessary. Leave the money in the pockets of the citizens, not more government spending.
I liked Ramirez comments on a commercial Parcel Tax (per sq foot?) but I’m not sure that these, for a city, qualify as a regular (50percent + 1) rather than a Special Tax.
Transfer Tax, why not just Inflation Index that $3.30 from its 1973 baseline?
“But the city lacks the money needed to pay for critical infrastructure projects and future capital initiatives, according to a study session presented to the council on Sept. 12.” This is not a surprise at all. City services are not free, when a city grows, the infrastructure needs to be expanded to accommodate the expanding population. YIMBYs have advocated for both 1) extreme housing increases, and 2) reduction of fees paid by developers that have historically been collected to pay for infrastructure enhancement (especially schools and parks). The net result: the burden is being transferred from developers to ordinary home owners. This is called “privatizing the profits, and socializing the costs”. Does the shift make housing less expensive for new homeowners? NO! Thanks to Prop 13, the highest burden of the new taxes will fall on the shoulders of new homeowners. This is a case of “be careful what you ask for”. YIMBY advocacy increases the profits of developers, and puts increased financial burdens related to the DENSITY THAT YIMBYS WANT SO BADLY onto the backs of young families.
@Steven Nelson – East Palo Alto required 2/3 super majority to pass, it got almost 80% https://ballotpedia.org/East_Palo_Alto,_California,_Measure_HH,_Commercial_Office_Space_Parcel_Tax_(November_2018)
Leslie, it seems like you’re discussing the impact of YIMBY advocacy on city services, infrastructure, and housing costs. Could you please clarify the specific infrastructure needs and costs you’re referring to? This will help me better understand your perspective.
No. Just like every organization, the city needs to live within it’s means and stop spending their constituent’s money – before they even get their hands on it. If these “shortfalls” have not already been addressed, they need to be shelved. This proposal will be a burden on too many people including young families, the elderly, and others on fixed incomes – people who are already dealing with interest rate rises, increased utility costs and inflation in general.
Frank, Voice has constraints on char count. Here is article from the Voice describing impact of massive growth on infrastructure:
“With Mountain View poised to grow by 15,000 units, planning commissioners worry about parks, utilities and public services”, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2022/08/04/with-mountain-view-poised-to-grow-by-15000-units-planning-commissioners-worry-about-parks-utilities-and-public-services
“If that maximum scenario is ultimately approved, the city is looking at a 40% increase to its overall housing stock, Commissioner Hank Dempsey pointed out at the meeting.
“That’s huge. That is absolutely huge of an impact,” Dempsey said. “I think that’s important to reinforce because we’re talking about a level of growth, and trying to guess at the impacts of a level of growth, that I don’t know that Mountain View’s ever seen.””
“During the Aug. 3 meeting, multiple commissioners said they worried about the city’s ability to meet the infrastructural needs required by 15,000 new units.”
Also- Senior Planner Ellen Yau describes how impact fees have been “updated” in 2nd draft of the Housing Element in response to HCD. https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2022/11/18/whats-new-with-the-housing-element-city-staff-talks-changes-made-to-second-draft-after-state-rejected-mountain-views-first-attempt Developer impact fees are normally collected by developers as a mechanism to collect $$$ to enhance the infrastructure (schools and parks) when development occurs and the population increases. At the time I left a comment: “”updating impact fees” is code for reducing funding that is used to add needed capacity to schools and parks.”
Finally, words of thanks from MV YIMBY re last HE draft: “The March Draft is also a large step forward for reducing constraints, as it has: A commitment to evaluate the totality of fees on an ongoing basis, and a robust program specifically for park in-lieu fees” https://mvyimby.com/post/2023-04-11-housing-element-endorsement/ Translation: we are now collecting LESS MONEY from developers to pay for parks. And the city is seeking to make up for that loss of $$$ by increasing taxes on ordinary homeowners. I don’t recall EVER before seeing a request from city to increase taxes to pay for more parks and open space. This is something that is very new.
Was that a response to my question? Why did you address it to Frank?
I understand your concerns regarding infrastructure and the impact of YIMBY advocacy. However, to have a more meaningful discussion, it would be helpful to have specific examples or cost estimates related to the infrastructure improvements you’re mentioning. This will allow us to delve deeper into the topic and explore the potential effects in more detail.
Not sure why you are addressing that question to me. I suggest you read article and press city officials for your answers: “Citing big funding needs, Mountain View looks to put tax measure to a vote in 2024”. Apparently costs are sufficient enough that city thinks that a tax increase is warranted. I am a big believer in transparency, I agree with you, more information would be very helpful. I think the public deserves to be getting more info than we are getting. In particular, I would like to have more information from Ellen Yau or anyone else on city staff to elaborate on how exactly developer impact fees were “updated” as part of the process of getting a Housing Element that met with HCD’s approval. I think the public deserves full transparency on that matter. Shifting burden from for-profit developers to ordinary residents is shameful, IMHO. And residents WERE NOT CONSULTED ON THIS, we were kept in the dark about it. Democracy!
The messages coming from the city about funding have been wildly swinging this past year. In January then Mayor Lucas Ramirez, together with council members Ellen Kamei and Pat Showalter, expressed concerns about cost of a special election to fill the vacancy left by Sally Lieber. https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/01/06/mountain-view-city-council-to-appoint-a-new-council-member-rather-than-conduct-a-special-election
Ramirez said it would be really nice to have “funds for things that the community will actually NEED” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA16jcqgMs ~1.35.10), implying that the public’s right to choose its political leaders doesn’t even register on his radar as an important “need”. Never forget that by filling the seat themselves, the CC essentially silenced the voice of voters when it came to the new Housing Element. Never forget that the new Housing Element benefits developers, Google, and high-wage earners far more than most residents.
Then in June we learned, “[MV]’s budget looks strong in post-pandemic rebound”, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/06/15/getting-back-to-business-mountain-views-budget-looks-strong-in-continued-rebound-from-the-pandemic “With city tax revenues rebounding and even surpassing pre-pandemic numbers, McCarthy said Mountain View is ready to get “back to business.””
Now the city has “big funding needs” and wants to impose tax hikes on residents? Excuse me? What is the connection of the new Housing Element to these tax hikes? Remember that residents were repeatedly mocked for expressing concerns of quality of life issues resulting from density, including the impact on schools and parks. Now we are being asked to foot the bill to fix those problems? Because of course we are. It’s like rubbing salt in the wound.
OK, so that was directed towards me. it was very confusing since you addressed it to Frank!
Thank you for providing more context. It’s essential to have a clear understanding of where the proposed funding is allocated. If the majority of the requested funding, such as the $160M for a new police building, is not directly related to the infrastructure improvements and quality of life issues resulting from increased density, it’s important to recognize that these are separate budgetary concerns. It’s understandable that residents might feel frustrated if they perceive a disconnect between the new Housing Element and funding allocation for unrelated projects. Discussing these concerns with local authorities and seeking transparency in budget decisions can help address these issues more effectively.
If they had any brains they would realize the folly of trying to increase tax burdens in the middle of an inflationary period. Everything is going up these days, except you know what isn’t? Our paychecks.
Maybe now they’ll reconsider all the foolish projects they have wasted our money on in the past.
Bernie, unfortunately, I have to agree with you.
Some of our council people seem out of touch.
If they listened to the shock a lot our our neighbors experienced when they received their energy bills last winter, they would realize how inappropriate to pile more taxes on our utility bills.
And right now, energy prices are headed up at a very steep rate since June of this
year.
It seems like tax payers are viewed as piggy banks that can be raided anytime they have a pet project.
In contrast, United President President Calvin Coolidge, emphasized frugality and economy when running government. He acted as a steward of the hard earned money of the tax payer.
“It’s essential to have a clear understanding of where the proposed funding is allocated … Discussing these concerns with local authorities and seeking transparency in budget decisions can help address these issues more effectively.”
Agreed. Also essential: a clear understanding of recent cuts to funding that were part of the Housing Element, cuts made to “reduce constraints”, which means “make it easier for developers to build housing in MV”. Sadly THE PUBLIC currently LACKS TRANSPARENCY regarding these funding cuts, and now the city wants to raise taxes on ordinary residents.
Let me remind everyone I said: “I would like to have more information from Ellen Yau or anyone else on city staff to elaborate on how exactly developer impact fees were “updated” as part of the process of getting a Housing Element that met with HCD’s approval.”
Let me ALSO mention that YIMBY leaders are ALSO in a position to elaborate on how exactly developer impact fees were “updated” as part of the process of getting a Housing Element that met with HCD’s approval. It bothers me greatly that both the City and YIMBY leaders are aware of these details, but the public at large is not. I wonder if anyone on City Staff or Council reads the Voice? Or any YIMBY leaders? How do we notify them that we would like clarification about funding cuts that were part of the HE?
https: //mvyimby .com/post/2023-04-11-housing-element-endorsement/
Direct links is https://mvyimby.com/post/2023-04-11-housing-element-endorsement/ , but that seems to be mangled now by Voice softare, not sure why.
“I am pleased to write on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY that our organization strongly
**supports the March Draft **of the Housing Element with the additions in Exhibit E of the resolution. We believe that, with those additions, the Draft fully complies with state law and merits HCD’s prompt approval.” …
“Ellen Yau, Eric Anderson, Aarti Shrivastava and other city staff should be applauded for the herculean effort and conscientious analysis that they’ve invested into this roadmap for the city’s future.”…
“The March Draft is also a large step forward for reducing constraints, as it has:
1. A commitment to evaluate the totality of fees on an ongoing basis, and a robust program specifically for park in-lieu fees”
Again, “reduce constraints” means “make it easier for developers to build housing in MV”. The March HE reduces “constraints” on developers, and now in September city staff propose that taxes be levied on residents in order to meet “Parks and Open Space” goals. And MV YIMBY claims to “drive policy change to increase the supply of housing at all levels and bring down the cost of living in our thriving city.” https://mvyimby.com/ Sorry, but no. Levying additional taxes on residents DRIVES UP COSTS on residents, it does not bring them down.
It’s noteworthy that the city has indicated financial security to support existing programs and services but lacks the available budget for a $160M new police building, which is unrelated to the Housing Element. This underscores the need for clear and transparent budgeting processes and careful consideration of how funds are allocated to various projects. Residents’ concerns about funding priorities in relation to housing and infrastructure are valid, and engaging in constructive dialogues with city officials can help address these issues more effectively.
Uh, the police (administrative) building is rather old. But it is rather, shall I say it, office.
Now, per square ft, especially in a Down Commercial Market, it should be possible to Buy Used a fairly recent commercial building, and convert it to the necessary ‘public facing’ and staff serving type of functions. Walk into the current Police Building, it’s definitely Not a Fire Station! A Staff Room, a Auditorium/Presentation space, a big Chief Office + Chief’s staff servicing area etc. A hardened Emergency Operation center (TBD).
With the City, all funds are/can be commingled. Not like School Districts, where money from borrowing (via School Bonds) can only be easily used for facilities, and is semi-permanently (30-40 yr) increasing Property Tax Rates. I think the City surveyed before – No Tax Increase for Facilities by a Property Tax Bond was the clear ‘potential voter’ reply.
When I read this story, I got very confused.
Just a few months ago, the city was reporting it was in good financial shape.
And now they are talking about having to put revenue increases on the ballot?
What is really happening here?
Tech companies are laying people off, especially in the recruiting section. Offices are closing. There is more closing of properties I have seen, even the Chase bank building is going to be taken down. And many people are leaving the city and never coming back. My building has 3 unit vacancies out of 11.
There is a lot going on not being accurately reported. Perhaps the City no knows it is on a similar rack as San Francisco? A doom cycle has started here?
I wonder if this relates in someway to the ending of the pandemic aid the city received for various programs that they want to continue?
With a fair amount of vacant industrial real estate in town, $160 million for a new police building doesn’t make sense… why not pick up one of those industrial properties and do a mere remodel costing a fourth that, certainly nothing first cabin! Then, develop the old MV police property as housing – not low income housing but a better cash producer – selling it off to defray the cost of the new police station.
The latter needs to be all about the cash, to balance the City budget. The last thing that should be allowed is some sort of mushy excess civic capacity that yields no cash… for example, not another parklet give the huge Cuesta asset downtowners enjoy, nor yet another low-income housing scenario. We already do our our fair share for the latter, but if we really need another police building recognize we have a source of ready cash in the current police site, a ferociously valuable property.
Anything to avoid reflexively raising fees on residents and small businesses during an inflationary period.
Maybe push out the massive downtown remodel, as well? All it is turning into is a food court anyway, which does not a community make. What Los Altos did after COVID was much saner (and cleaner), hasn’t cost an arm and a leg, and yet still has a full range of community services.
Noted: lack of response from City Staff, City Council, and YIMBY leaders re clarification about funding cuts that were part of the Housing Element.
Does the MV City Council believe in transparency? Do voters deserve to understand how impact fees have been “updated”. This is deceitfully ambiguous language. Have fees been increased? Or decreased? How, and by how much?
And MV YIMBY leaders are no better. Thanking city staff for “reducing constraints” … what does that mean? Sounds nice, right? Is it nice to lower fees on developers, and then transfer those costs onto residents, especially young families hoping to buy homes here?
MV YIMBY claims to “drive policy change to increase the supply of housing at all levels and bring down the cost of living in our thriving city.” Sorry, but no. Levying additional taxes on residents DRIVES UP COSTS on residents, it does not bring them down.
Those who read the materials presented in the presented to the council, https://www.mv-voice.com/news/reports/1694633952.pdf , will find:
“The Adopted Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget and General Operating Fund Forecast currently shows sufficient financial resources to maintain the Mountain View of today, but building the Mountain View of tomorrow will require enhanced revenue streams to maintain ongoing fiscal stability and accomplish the bold initiatives under way”
Sometimes I feel I’m asked to explain why 1+1=2. This massive tax increase is NOT NEEDED for the MV “of today”. What does “building the Mountain View of tomorrow will require enhanced revenue streams” refer to? Of course these words refer to the new Housing Element, with a target of 15,000 new homes that will increase the city population by an estimated 40%. Of course.
“Overview of Critical Unfunded Mountain View Priorities”
– Public Safety Infrastructure, Emergency Operations Center, 9-1-1 Emergency Dispatch”. Estimate: $160 million. Not said: a population increase of 40% will increase public safety needs. Of course.
– Parks and Open Space. No estimate given. Wait, what? Why was no estimate given FOR THIS ONE PRIORITY ALONE?
– Climate Change Mitigation. Estimate $10 million (decarbonization projects) + $40 million (increase the City’s electrical grid capacity. Not said: to accommodate population increase of 40%).
– Affordable Housing. $50 million to “fully fund” the affordable housing projects “in the pipeline”: 1,690 units. No mention of RHNA target of 6,000 affordable units, pretty clear that target will not be met. No mention that OVER HALF of residents are IN NEED of affordable housing – taxing us in order to obtain funding for affordable housing is a cruel joke. Not only that, RHNA requires 6000 units, 1690 is LESS THAN A THIRD OF WHAT IS “REQUIRED”. Why is the RHNA target for affordable housing being ignored?
– Castro and Rengstorff Grade-Separation Projects. Estimate: $45 million
So the Total Estimate is $160+$50+$50+$45=$305 million plus ??? for Parks and Open Space.
Also not said: how much are taxes supposed to rise on various household?
I agree with what others have said: if these monies are not desperately needed to address infrastructure needs associated with the Housing Element, it’s pretty tone deaf of the city to impose such massive tax increases on residents at this time. Inflation is insane, grocery bills are insane, do city staff understand this?
Now that Google is continuing to lay off workers, I am wondering how soon more offices in Mountain view may be closed?
Especially because these were the recruiting employees, there is a lot of downsizing about to hit Google, especially during the current litigation.
It looks like Google city is in serious danger. And with the problems with the case of Mountain View polluting the water, requiring a major overhaul of the storm drain system, and also the dramatic change in the local businesses. There seems to be a lot of trouble underway.
Just wondering if there will be any public discussions about these issues?
Respectfully, it’s important to manage our expectations when it comes to expecting individuals involved in important decision-making to read comments on a website. While expressing concerns and opinions online can be valuable, engaging directly with local authorities or participating in community meetings might provide a more direct avenue for addressing these issues and influencing decisions. These channels often offer more effective ways to make your voice heard on matters like budget allocation and infrastructure improvements.
Noted: 2nd day of lack of response from City Staff, City Council, and YIMBY leaders re clarification about funding cuts that were part of the Housing Element.
I know my comments must be uncomfortable to those in certain quarters. I have been doing my best to stand up to the disinformation and deception spread by the well-funded and now powerful CA YIMBY movement. I have done so for several reasons:
1) I am part of class of persons who this movement has demonized and falsely blamed for the high cost of housing in MV. I bought a home here about 30 years ago, when MV was “a dump”. It was more of a working class community than the more elite towns that surround us. Castro street was ugly, and nothing but Chinese restaurants. I chose MV because I wanted to raise a family in a town with more racial and socio-economic diversity than others nearby.
2) The plight of “teachers, service workers, and kids who don’t code” is something that I care about, as do so many, many wonderful people who live in MV (we are called “residents”). I am fighting to actually increase AFFORDABLE housing in MV in a way that actually helps lower-income and average workers. See point 1.
3) I am outraged that the plight of such people is being exploited and ignored in order to dramatically increase the number of expensive, market rate housing units in MV, resulting in profits for developers, and allowing the rich and powerful Google to improve it’s bottom line even more. The powers of government are being used to benefit the rich and powerful, while “residents” are actually demonized, and mocked and belittled for caring about “quality of life” issues. This is NOT DEMOCRACY, it is called “oligarchy”, I fear for the young people in this country.
A lack of transparency is understandable from those who wish to accomplish goals that are not in the best interest of voters. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
I happen to know that leaders in the YIMBY movement read the Voice, as do former Council Members, I have exchanged comments with them in the comments. If City Staff, City Council, and YIMBY leaders want to claim ignorance re my calls for transparency on this matter, it would not surprise me. Perhaps my call is unorthodox, but my heart is in the right place. I simply want voters to know the Truth.
A countdown indicating that people have not responded to your comments without evidence that they’ve been read in the first place is unlikely to be productive in furthering your goals. Constructive engagement and direct communication with relevant parties are generally more effective ways to advocate for your concerns and ensure they are taken into consideration.
Noted: 3rd day of lack of response from City Staff, City Council, and YIMBY leaders re clarification about funding cuts that were part of the Housing Element.
The issue: Senior Planner Ellen Yau described how impact fees have been “updated” in 2nd draft of the Housing Element in response to HCD. https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2022/11/18/whats-new-with-the-housing-element-city-staff-talks-changes-made-to-second-draft-after-state-rejected-mountain-views-first-attempt . What does that mean? Did fees increase or decrease? Why didn’t Yau provide a more complete explanation, and instead used an ambiguous word like “updated”? Furthermore, was this “update” required by HCD? Were cuts to developer fees REQUIRED to have MV’s Housing Element approved? Is it fair or just to increase taxes on residents after fees have been cut for for-profit developers? The public deserves to know the Truth, and not be kept in the dark.
Developer impact fees are normally collected by developers as a mechanism to collect $$$ to enhance the infrastructure (schools and parks) when development occurs and the population increases. I have previously engaged in dialog with YIMBY leaders on this topic, one of whom told me they considered such fees to be a “tax on housing”, so they were against them. I said, yes, one could think of such fees in that way. Governments impose taxes in order to pay for services. Advocating against developer impact fees without advocating an alternative source of funding is the same as advocating for the defunding the monies collected to increase school and park capacity when the population grows. The response I heard: just because YIMBYs are opposed to developer impact fees, it didn’t mean that they were opposed to funding for schools and parks. They like schools and parks! They just don’t want developers to pay for them, and they didn’t say who they thought should pay for them instead. Now we see that city staff wants to increase taxes on residents to pay for “Parks and Open Space.” Does this decrease the cost of living for ordinary residents? Does this make housing more affordable for young families? No.
For the record: nobody likes taxes, ever ever ever. Governments try to have a sense of fairness about it, and use a variety of taxes as a result: sometimes there is logic to a sales tax, an income tax, or a property tax, etc. I agree with the logic of past generations: developer impact fees are a logical way to collect monies to pay for expansion of the public infrastructure when the population increases. Residential developers are in the BUSINESS of expanding the population of an area, they generate PROFITS from doing so. It is only logical that part of those profits be used to pay for the necessary enhancements to the infrastructure. But heck, reasonable people can disagree, they can have discussion and debate. That is not what happened here. When the housing element was “updated” to reduce fees on developers to fund parks and open space, it created a need to find an alternative source of funding. These actions were taken without giving the public the opportunity to understand what was happening, and certainly without obtaining approval from voters for such actions. The state mandates for density in MV are resulting in tax increases on residents. This ain’t democracy, friends.
Hey is this the Opinion section because why is there so much editorializing in all these stories in the Voice? Who says we have a “historically conservative approach to increasing taxes”?
Also about that quote that “all council members favored the general tax option,” sure because they know 2/3 of the voters will not approve it. If there was a way they could raise taxes and not ask permission you can bet they’d do that, too.
Hear me out. Here’s a crazy idea. How about we cut the budget on all departments by maybe 2% or so, run a more efficient government, and use the savings for new projects? If we want a new police station or to spend money on climate mitigation, fine, but the cuts should fund the new programs. Making tradeoffs is what actual leaders do.
The only ideas on the table at the city council seem to be things that require no sacrifice for the city. If someone ran for city council and their promise was to push for belt-tightening and not another tax hike they’d have my vote.
Taxes are indeed crucial for funding essential services and infrastructure that benefit society as a whole. It’s important to ensure that the burden of funding infrastructure is shared fairly among all members of society rather than solely placed on newcomers. Equitable distribution of these costs can contribute to a more inclusive and sustainable community where everyone shares in the responsibility of supporting vital public services. Disproportionately demanding that newcomers fund improvements shared by everyone is simply unfair.