Comments on: Kalispell Council Hesitant on Road Impact Fees
By John on 01-13-09
So let me see if I have this straight… It costs the city $1.50 to provide road and other infrastructure for new shopping developments for every $1.00 it gets back in taxes. But we’re concerned that if try to make up the losses we’ll stop having the growth that is creating the losses! Fiscal responsibility demands that we pay for what we want. If developers want to build a store, they should pay what it costs to provide the roads needed to that store. If the store doesn’t pencil out by paying for the road—then maybe the business is an economically flawed concept. The Republican concept of deficit economics and privatizing the profits while socializing the costs and risk is soooo yesterday…
By Bye-Bye Bucky on 01-14-09
WTF, don’t you get it? We are NOT GOING TO PAY FOR YOUR CRAP!
By Funguymon on 01-14-09
I posted this on the other road impact article:
I believe impact fees wouldn’t be a problem at all. Finding a good balance on the impact fees costs on developers is obviously the goal. The reason why I believe impact fees are necessary is because if they build a sub-division or a Super Center Walmart, than a lot of activity arises in that particular area. For example, a constant barrage of heavy equipment moving in and out will take a toll on the publicly funded roads around that area. Take the Stillwater Road that connects Empire Estates to Glacier High School. That road has existed before either project begun, but you know that road took a beating while constructing all those roads, sidewalks, houses, etc. from multi ton dump trucks and loaders. The result is a pothole crazy speed bump for the next 100 yards.
Than this ties into Glacier High School because since our government hired a contractor to build that school, who do you think should foot the bill? Believe it or not, the tax payers because the tax payers are now the owner of that land and thus we can’t neglect the roads around it into shambles just because, so as part of the budget to build Glacier High, they must factor in road impact fees.
The Hutton View Ranch complex developers and land leasers (or owners) should contribute an initial impact fee because who is going to pay for the time and resources to put up stop lights and any damage caused to the road from abnormal use from heavy equipment? Why should tax payers foot the bill? Does it really steal that much profit from developers and the business owners? Part of taking a risk in a business is normally paying money upfront in hopes of a larger profit. If a business can’t figure out how to, either they don’t know how to run one or the government implemented fees way out of whack, but either way developer, taxpayer, what ever, no one should get a free hand-me-out.
In my opinion, Bucky Wolf should pay for the necessary upgrades north of Kalispell to highway 93 to upgrade the road infrastructure if he wants a mall there. Would I rather have him not pay and have delayed traffic between Whitefish and Kalispell, or have him pay the impact fees that allow fluent travels? Remember emergency vehicles need to get pass there, and if traffic is backed up at poorly planned intersections and this looses one, two, five, or what minutes for fire, medical, and police to help our fellow citizens that we pay for to respond to them, why should the valley residents suffer for Bucky’s investment as he sits back in Tennessee or developing more areas?
I’m not against growth, but I am against poorly planned growth. A great example of well thought out growth is Portland, Oregon. I enjoyed bee bopping around downtown because of traffic friendly roads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland,_Oregon
Why shouldn’t Kalispell and Flathead Country make good habits to begin with, and implement one time reasonable fees that are negotiated by both sides and signed so no confusion or regrets happen later?
As a side note, if the illegitimate income tax didn’t exist and the government followed the Constitution about direct and indirect taxes, than these other taxes and fees wouldn’t seem so harsh. Now talk about way more money saved by developers and workers (both rich and minimum wage earners) compared to little insignificant road impact fees. How would we fund everything else? Well cutting the city, state, and federal budget and the American public to stand up to these giants money waste and say enough is enough is a start. Also informing yourself on how America went 100 years without the income tax and did just fine. Check out Aaron Russo’s “America: Freedom to Fascism” for a well done job on the income tax part (stress on that part specifically!).
By Dan on 01-15-09
The article makes it sound like only residential tax dollars are used for infrastructure. Developers pay taxes too and at a higer rate than the public. Take the time to examine exactly what business owners are giving back to the community while you’re lamenting about the perceptions they’re only taking the profits and running. The Rose Crossing extension between Whitefish Stage and 93 is a much needed road that the city has wanted and needed but hasn’t been able to fund in the past. That road is being fully funded and built to city standards as a part of Glacier Town Center project at a cost of millions of dollars, and then being dedicated to the city free and clear. That’s millions of dollars for road improvements that DON’T come out of taxpayers pockets at all, not a penny. It’ll help releive traffic congestion in that area and sure, it’ll help traffic flow to the shopping center too, but it’ll serve more than just the developer. If development construction damages roads then that developer is by law supposed to repair them before the city records the final plat. If the city isn’t enforcing that rule, citizens should speak up at council meetings to voice this concern.
By BS again on 01-15-09
there never was and never will be any need for the “Rose Crossing” thing. This is some folly put forth by Bucky & Gang. Just say no to these parasitic developers
By John on 01-15-09
Nobody is making it sound like only developers pay taxes… that’s the problem: too much of the infrastructure expense that comes from commercial development has been falling on residential taxpayers. The development strategy these big strip-mall developers are trying to import to Kalispell and the Flathead has proven to be a bad, bad deal for local communities. Their recipe is this: churn up virgin land outside of town (it’s cheaper farmland), pass much of the costs of extending infrastructure to these outlying areas onto local taxpayers, and leave in its wake large swatches of the existing town cores to become economic redevelopment zones that taxpayers will once again be on the hook for. It all may seem enticing to the local Chamber of Commerce and the Industry Groups, but it is nothing but JUNK FOOD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.