183 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

Bish,

I too was a bit confused on where you were going with the post, thanks for clarifying your message.

The private/public school debate probably could be another interesting thread. If you could somehow reform the system to make all schools private and built with private money without taxpayer support, the conservatives would want your picture on the $20.00 bill!

If you were successful at changing who builds schools and how they are operated, this would mean that the developers would no longer have pay the impact fees for schools, correct? If indeed the developers did not have to pay impact fees for schools, do you really believe they would lower the price of the homes by the amount of the fee they no longer have to pay and pass that savings on to buyers?

Does anybody else think they would?

The reality is private individuals and developers try and sell homes for the most they can get, so I really don't fault developers for trying to maximize their profits. If you and would are trying to sell our homes for the maximum price, developers should have the same right!

It is imperative that growth pay for 100% of its impacts, whether its done with new residents paying it thru Mello-Roos or developers giving up some of their profits. This way the existing residents are not subsidizing growth!

[bishmasterb]

If you were successful at changing who builds schools and how they are operated, this would mean that the developers would no longer have pay the impact fees for schools, correct? If indeed the developers did not have to pay impact fees for schools, do you really believe they would lower the price of the homes by the amount of the fee they no longer have to pay and pass that savings on to buyers?

Robert,

They would lower their prices not from altruism, but through competition, although admittedly it wouldn't happen instantly. But over a short time those cost savings would be passed along to consumers. One homebuilder would lower prices, forcing others to lower prices and so on.

It is imperative that growth pay for 100% of its impacts, whether its done with new residents paying it thru Mello-Roos or developers giving up some of their profits. This way the existing residents are not subsidizing growth!

I don't want single parents or childless couples to have to subsidize growth either!

----------------------

I realize this is an academic discussion at best, and a futile one at worst. But I have to call a spade a spade, and the current system just isn't working. People who use services should pay for those services, not some third party. Thanks for the discussion however.

[Robert Giacometti]

I don't want single parents or childless couples to have to subsidize growth either!

----------------------

I realize this is an academic discussion at best, and a futile one at worst. But I have to call a spade a spade, and the current system just isn't working. People who use services should pay for those services, not some third party. Thanks for the discussion however.

Bish,

You do realize that under the current system those who don't have children in schools are paying more in property taxes to build schools.

I agree with your comment about having those who use services pay for what they are using. This is why I would prefer to shift the cost of new schools to those who are needing new schools ( new residents) or developers as a cost of doing business.

If schools were funded this way we wouldn't have to raise taxes to pay for growth!

Robert

[benning]

Just wanted to remind bish and everyone that all we're talking about here is the school land and building, not the actual cost to operate or maintain the school or the administrative or professional staff, bureaucracy, etc. correct me if I'm wrong...

[benning]

Robert,

They would lower their prices not from altruism, but through competition, although admittedly it wouldn't happen instantly. But over a short time those cost savings would be passed along to consumers. One homebuilder would lower prices, forcing others to lower prices and so on.

Quick...where is the clickable smile for 'dreamer'?

In a completely free market, MAYBE. For the past 20 years or so, production builders work together in all aspects of homebuilding, from negotiating and lobbying for lower development fees to sharing marketing and infrastructure costs (this is why there is more than one builder per development). Do you think they're doing this so they can compete against each other to bring us the best product at the lowest cost?

Need that 'dreamer' smile again.

Look, paying for (or building) a school in the community they create should be a cost of doing business.

[bishmasterb]

benning,

So if builders collude when lobbying government as you say. It would seem the solution would be less government for them to lobby, not more.

[Terry]

Bish,

You do realize that under the current system those who don't have children in schools are paying more in property taxes to build schools.

I agree with your comment about having those who use services pay for what they are using. This is why I would prefer to shift the cost of new schools to those who are needing new schools ( new residents) or developers as a cost of doing business.

If schools were funded this way we wouldn't have to raise taxes to pay for growth!

Robert

I disagree that it should be user-based; simply for the reason that we ALL benefit from having educated children in our community and our society in general. Educated children generally become productive adults who contribute to our society (by becoming developers, teachers, government officials). The majority of juvenile delinquents (and adult criminals) and those using welfare programs are there as a result of having poor education.

[benning]

Terry -
I think he's only talking about the school building, not the entire school system.

[tessieca]

Benning has a point: the children at Parkway will get a good education in this district regardless of where their little red school house is placed. It's a matter of this particular community having a desire to maintain the neighborhood school concept.

Caveat: when we have neighborhood schools, there tends to be more of a buy-in from families, thus greater parental involvement, thus greater student achievement, thus greater benefit to the community.

[DrKoz23]

Caveat: when we have neighborhood schools, there tends to be more of a buy-in from families, thus greater parental involvement, thus greater student achievement, thus greater benefit to the community.

If a school has to be placed in the neighborhood of where the students live in order for more parental involvement, that is pretty sad. Just the motivation of wanting their kids to reach their greatest potential should be enough to get involved in the school and their child's education.

A building 1/2 mile away or 3 miles away should not determine how involved a parent is in their kid's school and the well-being of the school overall.

[EDF]

DrKoz....

Bravo... I couldn't agree with you more...

It doesn't make a bit of difference where the school is... a school close to a neighborhood is a good selling point only if you want to be close to one so your little "beasties" can get there by walking...

I was involved in my boys from the beginning and their 1st school was about 5 miles away....

[Terry]

DrKoz....

Bravo... I couldn't agree with you more...

It doesn't make a bit of difference where the school is... a school close to a neighborhood is a good selling point only if you want to be close to one so your little "beasties" can get there by walking...

I was involved in my boys from the beginning and their 1st school was about 5 miles away....

No one remembers that Folsom kids had to be bussed to Mitchell Junior High in Rancho in the 60s!!

[Bob]

The only legal requirement is for them to pay the per dwelling fee (1/3 of the cost of construction).

Tessieca,

In light of the School Board majority, including yourself, backing off in challenging Measure W in regards to it's bogus claim that developers will pay 100% of school costs south of 50, this is quite a conflicting statement.

So what is it? Can they pay 100% south of 50 or only 1/3?

I know the answer, you know the answer, the School Board’s attorney knows the answer, even our own city attorney knows the answer.

So why are you not outraged that the City IS backing away from the even paltry provisions of Measure W, accelerating the plan for development to start south of 50 in just three years, WITHOUT a school funding plan?

It will make the funding issue for the Parkway school look like a joke. Do you plan on being the head cheerleader in a few years when Measure W collapses and you and the rest of the School Board have to come back asking residents to approve a third school bond, this time for $150 million?

Pardon me for being so blunt, but I just cannot understand your raw-raw attitude in developing south of 50 and how it conflicts with your long time service to this community and our children.

Also, for the education of this Forum’s readers, the bill that limits developer payments for schools to only 1/3 (SB50) was passed in 1999. Well after the Parkway and Empire Ranch developer agreements were signed. Before 1999, they could have negotiated for more, but they did not.

[Bob]

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..............

Terry,

I could let most slides on such a convoluted and erroneous comment on the effect of fees on housing prices in:

1. An area with staggering housing price inflation.
2. Developments where the land was purchased cheap from ranchers.
3. An area where Mello-Roos bonds (To the tune of about $3,000/year/house) were sold to limit the developers’ financial exposure.

But not someone as yourself who is very knowledgeable about our real estate market and surely knows better. As correctly noted by others in previous posts, a house sells for the top dollar that the market (buyers) will bare.

Double the fees or cut them to zero, and the selling price would be the same.

Here is some interesting support of this statement. I have a copy of a rather thick independent financial analysis done for the Empire Ranch (then Russell Ranch) development. The report was developed to evaluate the financial viability of selling bonds for developing that area. The report concludes that to be viable and offer bondholders a nice return, houses would have to sell for:

$180,000 for tract homes
$220,000 for "custom tract" homes
$280,000 for custom homes

Compare these figures to what homes now sell for.

Think there is room for developers to provide more than their 1/3?

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

[Terry]

$180,000 for track homes
$220,000 for "custom track" homes
$280,000 for custom homes

The word is "tract", not "track".

You must not have been educated in Folsom school.