The editor accurately notes the decrease in new home building within the Priority Funding Areas, which are relatively developed areas with existing infrastructure capable of handling new growth. The editor observes that new development occurs too often in the communities less equipped to handle the new arrivals.
It is suggested developers choose a path of least resistance in these outlying areas because community resistance is high in the more populated Priority Funding Areas. While that may be...
| This story has expired! You can purchase the full text in our news archives. |
If you encounter other problems, please email nlundskow@capitalgazette.com and include your name, username, and any errors or messages that are displayed. The more information you can provide, the better able we will be to assist you.
In order to post or vote on a comment, you must be signed in with a hometownannapolis account.
Take a look at a summary of Commenting Guidelines.
Report Abuse or Vote In order to allow the user community the ability to collectively rank the value of comments posted on the Capital Gazette websites we have implemented a thumbs-up/down system. All logged-in users may participate by voting up/down each comment. If others vote on your comment, your individual score will go up/down depending on the votes. Initially, everyone starts with a score of zero, and must earn credits to have significant voting weight. Individuals with higher scores will have more voting weight. 0
0
Covering cost - 2009-11-14 17:40:46
Offering impact fees? How about paying for the infrastructure costs associated with each new house? That will solve the problem. Currently, permiting fees cover less than 20% of the infrastructure costs of a new home. Why are current County residents obligated to cover/subsidize an individual's development costs? I've built homes and recognize it is a costly process, but the rewards are significant. The market system works, if it is fair and open. Developers should be obligated for all, or a significantly great share, of infrastructure costs associated with their business. Similar to lumber or shingles this should be a line item in the budget. Instead, many in the builder community, stretch the code through variance and special exception to reap a government conferred enhancement, using a process which provides four bites at the apple to appeal. This is a process in which the cost of litigation is beyond the individual or even community groups and for which they gain nothing except enforcement of the code or general plan. Developers on the other hand with one or two additional 'lots' more than covers litigation costs. What to we get, overbuilding and current residents obligated spend their tax dollars to cover (80%) what should be are part of the cost of the new house. The results, roads are over-crowded,, deteriorating water & sewer systems, challenged police fire and emergency services. All of these service are important, but not more so than our schools. Citizens are left with overcrowded schools with few tax dollars to maintain physical structure or pay for new teachers. We've seen the impact of inadequate fees.
unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?
harry trampolini - severna park, MD - Karma: Excellent
If you encounter other problems, please email nlundskow@capitalgazette.com and include your name, username, and any errors or messages that are displayed. The more information you can provide, the better able we will be to assist you.