183 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

You don't seem to understand that if developers were to fund schools 100%, it would just increase the cost of your home!!!

Terry,

You don't seem to understand that people will only pay fair market value for their home. If developers pay 100% for funding new schools they are still only get paid fair market price for the homes they sell!

I have seen this flawed argument before and its still flawed!

I have asked you this before, Why are you so eager to subisidize growth?
Why is anybody?

[benning]

Terry -
As much as I would enjoy a robust discussion about the cost and effectiveness of schools by state for a given number of variables...it belongs on another discussion string.

I agree with Robert. Theoretically, you're right, the developers pass on the costs. Theoretically, only to the NEW home buyers. What you don't understand is that the cost is 'in the noise', especially when compared to...oh let's say the NOTHING.... that has driven up the costs of new homes over the last 2-3 years.

[dave]

You don't seem to understand that if developers were to fund schools 100%, it would just increase the cost of your home!!!

You don't seem to understand that we pay it one way or another. It could be paid 100% at close of escrow by the buyer (or by the builder when the building permit is pulled a little earlier).

Or 33% is paid at close of escrow and we wait until much later to pay the rest through a general obligation bond. But as long as there are people who can't or don't want to understand, or have a grudge against public schools, we will all lose a little.

The ridiculous notion of the school district needing to live "within it's means" show a lot of ignorance. It costs a certain amount to build schools. You can't merely tell the general contractor to accept 33% because Terry says so.

[DrKoz23]

Terry,

You don't seem to understand that people will only pay fair market value for their home. If developers pay 100% for funding new schools they are still only get paid fair market price for the homes they sell!

I have seen this flawed argument before and its still flawed!

I have asked you this before, Why are you so eager to subisidize growth?
Why is anybody?

Good thing Robert isn't in office. He would tax every business right out of Folsom. His kind of thinking is what keeps businesses leaving this state. Government can't ever be blamed for irresponsible and unaccountable spending... its always the businesses that should pay!

Builders don't build homes for free you know. Yes they make money... that's why they are in the business. But land costs money (and the cost is increasing)... materials cost money (and these costs are increasing)... labor costs money (and these costs are increasing). Do you expect builders to be in the business just to break even? Maybe look at your own argument because I think YOUR flawed argument would have it that way.

Maybe if the city would have realized the land would today cost $1,000,000 per acre where the Parkway school is suppose to be they could have acted quicker... but they didn't. Should we now penalize the builders beacuse of this action.

[DrKoz23]

Terry -
As much as I would enjoy a robust discussion about the cost and effectiveness of schools by state for a given number of variables...it belongs on another discussion string.

I agree with Robert.  Theoretically, you're right, the developers pass on the costs. Theoretically, only to the NEW home buyers. What you don't understand is that the cost is 'in the noise', especially when compared to...oh let's say the NOTHING.... that has driven up the costs of new homes over the last 2-3 years.

You actually think that "NOTHING" has increased home prices over the past 2 to 3 years.

Okay... maybe the 20 to 30 percent increase per year is a little high... but ever heard of the basic economic theory of supply and demand. More people want homes than are available... then the price goes up. Think back to the gasoline shortage of the 70s. The only thing that sent the prices skyrocketing was the lack of supply and the greater demand.

Also... over the past several years the cost of land... raw materials... and labor have all increased. Who do you expect the developer to pass these costs onto? Themselves? Think again.

[AKD]

Increases in housing cost driven by market conditions are not a bad thing, but can be painful if you are looking to enter the market. Increase in housing cost do to fee’s (taxes) is borderline unconstitutional. The State Constitution addresses taxes. In Folsom we recently approved a large tax increase to build new schools. Although I did not vote in favor of it, our democratic process was followed in accordance to our State Constitution. The US and State Constitutions are interesting reads. If you, the general population and residents of this land, have not read them, you should.

[benning]

The current formula for funding schools is this: 1/3 fees paid through development, 1/3 fees paid by the locals through a bond (the one you voted against) and if #1 and #2 are satisified based on state regs, then the final 1/3 are paid by state bond money (you probably didn't vote for this one, either)

Each of these steps is frought with uncertainty -- passing a large bond is not a given, and they are a critical part of this -- not to mention that the formulas used to calculate costs are based on a set point in time and the land costs increases alone throw the formulas astray.

Other than 'increase taxes' and 'reduce waste', I haven't seen one alternative formula proposed by those who do not favor stricter development agreements.

[benning]

Increases in housing cost driven by market conditions are not a bad thing, but can be painful if you are looking to enter the market.  Increase in housing cost do to fee’s (taxes) is borderline unconstitutional.  The State Constitution addresses taxes.  In Folsom we recently approved a large tax increase to build new schools.  Although I did not vote in favor of it, our democratic process was followed in accordance to our State Constitution.  The US and State Constitutions are interesting reads.  If you, the general population and residents of this land,  have not read them, you should.

[benning]

Builders don't build homes for free you know.  Yes they make money... that's why they are in the business.  But land costs money (and the cost is increasing)... materials cost money (and these costs are increasing)... labor costs money (and these costs are increasing).  Do you expect builders to be in the business just to break even? Maybe look at your own argument because I think YOUR flawed argument would have it that way.

Maybe if the city would have realized the land would today cost $1,000,000 per acre where the Parkway school is suppose to be they could have acted quicker... but they didn't.  Should we now penalize the builders beacuse of this action.

Ok, specific example. The developer has owned the Parkway land for about 8-10 years, I think. Their costs have not gone up one iota for this piece of land, in fact, they've probably come down because interest rates are way more favorable now (assuming they're financing the land costs). No labor cost increases, no materials cost increases, only profit margin increases. (profit margin increases mean not only the total profit goes up, but the Rate at which profit is accumulated has gone up)

Now profit is a good thing, I agree. However, what I don't understand is why in this particular case where they have no additional costs and the value is just floating up free, could they not provide some type of small discount when selling it to a school district that will be building a school. Why don't they want to contribute to make the school building a source of pride for the community?

[bordercolliefan]

You are right, Benning.

Unfortunately, the developers are laughing at the AKDs and Dr. Kozs of Folsom all the way to the bank...

[DrKoz23]

You are right, Benning. 

Unfortunately, the developers are laughing at the AKDs and Dr. Kozs of Folsom all the way to the bank...

I guess you aren't a believer in a capitalist society. So you are saying we should penalize the developer who owns the Parkway land because they are forward-thinking and saw a tremendous opportunity by purchasing the land. If they are laughing all the way to the bank... its because they've increased their profits several-fold... and I don't see anything wrong in investing and making money.

Maybe the city should have realized this a while ago... and jumped on the land before it reached $1M per acre.

[DrKoz23]

Now profit is a good thing, I agree.  However, what I don't understand is why in this particular case where they have no additional costs and the value is just floating up free, could they not provide some type of small discount when selling it to a school district that will be building a school.  Why don't they want to contribute to make the school building a source of pride for the community?

Would you sell your home at a discounted price if it meant a bettering of the community. NO... you would take the best offer. What's wrong with the developer trying to get the most money for their investment?

[Terry]

I guess you aren't a believer in a capitalist society.  So you are saying we should penalize the developer who owns the Parkway land because they are forward-thinking and saw a tremendous opportunity by purchasing the land.  If they are laughing all the way to the bank... its because they've increased their profits several-fold... and I don't see anything wrong in investing and making money.

Maybe the city should have realized this a while ago... and jumped on the land before it reached $1M per acre.

The school district should have purchase it way back when it was first offered as a school site.

[dave]

The school district should have purchase it way back when it was first offered as a school site.

They tried to purchase it as soon as they had the $ from the bond. The FCUSD had an appraisal done as required. That's when Parker starting refusing to sell the land citing his own mysterious appraisal which he never showed to the FCUSD.

If you mean they should have tried to buy it before the bond, with what money?

[dave]

What's wrong with the developer trying to get the most money for their investment?

There is nothing wrong with anyone in business trying to maximize revenue. The problem arises when they lobby successfully to maximize profits by passing their costs onto existing residents.

Will you be a happy taxpayer when we (existing residents) have to pay for new schools for new residents as Folsom grows south toward Rancho Murieta? Would you also like to help pay for their streets and sidewalks? I think not.

But that is what your twisted logic is helping us to have to live with.

P.S. I am pouring concrete in my backyard soon. Your share of it is $100. Please send immediately.