183 replies to this topic

[benning]

No legal defaults, yet extremely uncooperative.  The only legal requirement is for them to pay the per dwelling fee (1/3 of the cost of construction). 

They have showed an extended unwillingness to negotiate (thus the need for condemnation proceedings) and a strong desire to hold out for top dollar which has priced the district out of the market.  If the district doesn't buy it, they can still stack townhomes under the power lines and get someone to buy.  That's not illegal, but it is certainly uncooperative.

Why can't the city make it a condition for development approval? (X amount of land in X location to be sold at X dollars to FCUSD within X years) in order to be able to develop the land?

[Robert Giacometti]

The city is the agency responsible for approving the Developer Agreement (DA).These conditions can be negoitiated just like any other conditions in a DA. There needs to be some sort of trigger that forces both the builder and the School District to take action when certain conditions are met.

If school sites and timely construction were truly a priority for those approving the DA's, I'm sure we would not have some of these issues.

This example is just one of the reasons why many are extemely concerned about S50. Those who have been around a for awhile and had to go through these issues should be commended for there willingness to try and prevent the repetition of some missed opportunities for their future new neighbors in S50.

[pampChefLady]

The city is the agency responsible for approving the Developer Agreement (DA).These conditions can be negoitiated just like any other conditions in a DA. There needs to be some sort of trigger that forces both the builder and the School District to take action when certain conditions are met.

If school sites and timely construction were truly a priority for those approving the DA's, I'm sure we would not have some of these issues.

This example is just one of the reasons why many are extemely concerned about S50. Those who have been around a for awhile and had to go through these issues should be commended for there willingness to try and prevent the repetition of some missed opportunities for their future new neighbors in S50.

THAT'S what I figured, and what I was referring to. Other communities elsewhere make sure that new schools will be provided for. Our community could also, if they chose to make it a priority.

[pampChefLady]

I, too, went to school is Arizona, and we were not only far (miles) from the schools, but we walked or biked to them. 

Your take on the buddy-buddy system between developers and government workers does not work in this case.  Parker has held out on selling the land for years, after designating a substandard site that cannot even be used for a school.  The district and the city have been trying to reach a solution for several years and have had little to no cooperation from Parker.

The distance to schools in Arizona varies, of course, but I was referring to the new subdivision type neighborhoods that have been developed there over the last 15 years or so. Although one's school may not be in walking distance for little kids, I'm unaware of situations where families were not able to attend THEIR school and were required to go out of their boundaries to another. As I alluded to above, in the communities where we lived in AZ, getting new schools built at the same time or shortly after a new subdivision was made a priority. If they can do that there, they should be able to do it here, too.

[Terry]

As I alluded to above, in the communities where we lived in AZ, getting new schools built at the same time or shortly after a new subdivision was made a priority.  If they can do that there, they should be able to do it here, too.

Just how much money do YOU want to pay for your home to support the school construction necessary. This money comes from NOWHERE EXCEPT taxpayers, homebuyers, etc. Keep in mind, the developers are providing their statutory 1/3 of costs. Of course they past those costs on to the homebuyers which is what any profit-motivated company does - pass on the costs to the customers.

Everyone wants to identify those responsible - well look in the mirror. Each of you needs to specify how much more YOU are willing to put up for your idea of the "perfect" school in your neighbhorhood. This money doesn't just appear out of nowhere.

If you're expecting the developers to provide more than their 1/3, why not just add a couple hundred dollars more to your property tax bill, send it in to the county assessor and specify that it be put into your local schools.

Yeah, that's what I thought..............

[benning]

Terry, This kind of thinking is crazy making.
Developers have made money hand over fist in the last decade, yet they act positively aghast if someone suggests that they take less than premium market value for anything that enhances the very community that provides them their profit channel!
Go into any subdivision in Folsom. Each phase costs substantially more than the last. Why? Because that's what the market will bear. Where does that money go? To the schools? To the community? The reverse is actually true. "Because the value went up, the land costs for the school just went up too, sorry about that. We'll be happy to sell it to you at full market value, then take the credit in our marketing literature that we provided the school site."

Of course your property tax argument doesn't hold water. Each persons' individual contribution doesn't amount to a hill of beans...it takes participation by all to get the kind of money that it takes to make quality schools. That's why we need school bonds, not bake sales.

Development contributes more than 1/3 of the need to create a quality school; Developers should pay more than 1/3 of the costs. If they are forced to pass on 100% of those costs to the buyer, then so be it.

[bishmasterb]

Let's just tax developers 100%, that seems fair. Obviously they're making a lot of money, and profit is bad in Socialist Amerika.

Why don't we make them pay for grocery stores and clothing stores while we're at it, because food and clothing are important necessities. Perhaps they can pay for cars as well, because transportation is important.

And since they're paying for educating children (children that aren't theirs), why don't they pay for after-school daycare and weekend trips to Disneyland as well.

[tessieca]

Perfect response, Benning!! I couldn't have said it better.

Alas, the developer agreements on most Folsom properties were approved in 1988, and the current city council has limited (although not zero) opportunity to extract more from developers. That's one of the reasons there is so much involvement in the schools issue for any south of 50 development. This community has been once bitten and wants to make sure the council holds the south of 50 developers' feet to the fire when it matters.

[benning]

Let's just tax developers 100%, that seems fair. Obviously they're making a lot of money, and profit is bad in Socialist Amerika.

Why don't we make them pay for grocery stores and clothing stores while we're at it, because food and clothing are important necessities. Perhaps they can pay for cars as well, because transportation is important.

And since they're paying for educating children (children that aren't theirs), why don't they pay for after-school daycare and weekend trips to Disneyland as well.

Bish, If we lived with an economic model like you want (libertarian, pay as you go), then I wouldn't be so hard on developers. We do rely on that model for some things (clothing, gas, food, cars, trips to Disneyland). For other things, like public education, we don't. It's a hallmark of American society to support education with public funds, whether we directly or indirectly benefit from it. If you wish to argue that the model should be abandoned, you're welcome to do so. But, currently, we must work with the framework we are given.
We have two choices to provide the infrastructure required to support the public cost that development requires: 1)direct taxation - through school bonds or other forms of property taxes (limited by prop 13 way back when) or 2)indirect taxation - through developer fees (limited by heavy lobbying and expenditures by the building industry). I support a heavy emphasis on #2 and it's hard to argue otherwise given the current state of the economy.

As for your implication that I think profit is bad...not so. Developers take great risks and must speculate with great sums of money. They deserve and earn their profit. It's just a shame that people who benefit so greatly from growth are so quick to turn their backs on those who remain in the communities that they build.

[bishmasterb]

benning,

I know it would be easier to admire the emperor's new suit, instead of criticizing it, but I can't bring myself to do that. Developers, as a business entity, don't have children so I don't see why they should have to pay for their education. Simply saying "that's the way it is, oh well" isn't good enough for me.

More troubling, because it is a third party payer system (where the people who use the system don't pay for it, someone else does; in this case initially developers and in the long run homebuyers) we have a system where consumers (parents) will continue to demand more and better service and producers (developers and homebuyers) will be forced to foot the bill.

Typically in systems like this you see total costs soar and services decline...and that is exactly what has happened with education, isn't it? At the same time, first party payer systems that are unregulated (computers, clothing, food to a large extent) continue to get cheaper and better.

[Robert Giacometti]

Bish,

Who should pay for the construction of new schools?

The building industry contributes significantly to our overall economy with jobs and provides a very valuable service. Like me, they are in busines to make a profit and that is good!

However, shouldn't impacts they create by building new homes be a cost off doing business? Let's use the "Parkway" for example. If there was no Parkway project, there wouldn't need to be an elementary school there, correct? Since there is a Parkway project and this project creates a need for an elementary school. The current funding formula says 1/3 developers, 1/3 local and 1/3 State. This means that existing residents have to pay for 1/3 of the impacts for the new school that is needed because of growth and 1/3 of future state budgets will have to pay the bond obligations because of the new homes. In a sense, you and I are subsidizing the developers profits by paying for 1/3 of the cost of schools that their project requires. Also, the state is subsidizing 1/3 by paying for the needs of future schools! If we didn't grow we wouldn't have to pay 1/3 additional taxes for schools, right?

Lets say that we all agree that growth should pay for its impacts. Then the new homeowners or developers would be responsible for paying for the needed school. This way the existing residents aren't subsidizing the costs of new residents moving into our community or the profits of the developers. Is this what you disagree with?

Terry's arguement about costs is not accurate because homes are sold at market value. They then don't have a list of add on impact fees that people pay on top of the market price. Those impact fees are part of the cost of doing business and it is up to the developer to absorb these costs or try and pass them on to the buyer, but again the buyer is only going pay market value regardless of impact fees. Sometimes they add on some of these fees thru Mello-Roos, but that is still part of what the market price.

It is truly remarkable to me that some are willing to pay for the impacts of growth and in a sense subsize the developers profits. WHY?

[bishmasterb]

Robert,

You are correct that if there was no Parkway, there would not be a need for a Parkway school. But if there was no Parkway (and Empire Ranch) there would be no need for a Ralphs at the corner of Blue Ravine and Natomas, right?

Let's extend the current thinking for school funding to grocery stores, since food is a MORE essential resource than education. Developers would have to fund the building of grocery stores along with additional tax revenues from state and local governments, as you described.

Since food would now be "free", people would not only demand more food, they'd stop eating Top Ramen, and start eating Filet Mignon every night. The total cost for providing food would increase dramatically over time, as people demanded more and more products and services from grocery stores. Taxes would have to be increased to cover the greater cost and people would wonder how we ever got by with so little money for food before the government took over.

[ducky]

Sorry, Bish. You lost me on your comparison of the need for new grocery stores and new schools. Grocery stores make a profit; schools don't. Actually the neighborhoods that create the need for the new grocery stores, shopping malls, etc help the construction industry because guess what? They make money constructing those buildings, too.

Robert, you're right about subsidizing developers' profits.

[bishmasterb]

Sorry, Bish.  You lost me on your  comparison of the need for new grocery stores and new schools.  Grocery stores make a profit; schools don't.  Actually the neighborhoods that create the need for the new grocery stores, shopping malls, etc help the construction industry because guess what?  They make money constructing those buildings, too.

The whole point of my analogy was comparing private and public institutions.

And actually, lots of schools make profit (or at least exist without government subsidization), they're called private schools, and they cost less to run and produce superior results generally, especially in less affluent areas.

[ducky]

If private schools make a profit why am I always being asked to buy raffle tickets, candy bars, asked to attend crab feeds, etc?

I'm still seeing apples and oranges here with the grocery store analogy, but maybe it's just me.