(Ed.note: This was a comment that I have posted for better visibility. "
Bill Connors has left a new comment on your post "Nostalgia: Mailbag: Mr. Connors Explains--"On Ba...":
Local governments all over this country set standards for what sort of mix of development they allow, including housing development, and it works. It could have worked here, too, if we had elected officials with foresight and courage. If a local government does not let the builders build whatever they want, they will build and sell what the local government wants them to build and sell, or they will be replaced by other builders who know how do it. In the name of the respecting the all mighty "free market" (which does not exist where only a handful of builders and two groups of developers own all the lots), Anonymous advocates selling the taxpayers of the city short.
Bill Connors
Former Evansville City Administrator
The Evansville Observer Archive: The unofficial history of Evansville, Wisconsin from 2005-2013: Thousands of Video and Audio and Articles; Free: To Search scroll to the Search this Blog line and enter name of person, topic, or issue. Then scroll up to see all articles. Or use Google Search by topic. Enjoy.
I agree again with Bill Connors in stating that local governments can and should have a role to play in determining the composition of the housing market as an aspect of its public responsibility. The developers who are naturally self-interested have no obligation to the community's interest and will always argue that their actions should be unfettered by any constraints. It's the uninformed assumption on the part of people like the person with the bridge for sale comment that this is just the way things always are or ought to be that keeps the developers in the drivers' seat. If the community has the will to make the kind of changes Connors described in his post, change can happen. But it requires a consensus on a more publicly responsible version of a healthy housing market that isn't dominated by the developers.
ReplyDeleteWhile this last council vote was disappointing, a change in policy can come if others like Bill speak up to defend the public interest and remind council members that their first obligation is to the public. With these developers in front of council commitees day in and day out with little general public participation to counterbalance them, it can start to seem as if the developers 'are' the public interest. I hope this kind of conversation stimulates a broader understanding of an alternative view of housing regulation and a just consideration of it.
Bill Conners
ReplyDeleteFormer City Administrator
Past and Current Socialist
While Bill did mentioned "Free Market" in his ramblings one thing Bill maybe does not want to admit that when this land was purchased the good old "Free Market" system was used then.
These developers purchased the land with their own money, dictating to them what they need to do with it is socalism at it's finest
It ain't socialism. It's (time honored, American as mom and apple pie) zoning. No one, except maybe the second Anonymous, thinks that just because you spent your hard-earned money to purchase land, you should be able to do whatever you want with it, no matter how it impacts your neighbors or the community.
ReplyDeleteBill Connors
I got out my handy dictionary and here is a definition of socialism:
ReplyDelete1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
I think this line:
"If a local government does not let the builders build whatever they want, they will build and sell what the local government wants them to build and sell, or they will be replaced by other builders who know how do it."
Pretty much sums up the definition above. This is not an issue of me putting a coal mine in my back yard it is a desire to acheive more tax dollars by building larger homes. Again more taxes for a bigger socialist government.
Hey Fellas, check this out: Wisc State Journal reports today that the Tax Revenues are down 2% from projections and now there is an economic squeeze and budjet cuts looming -just in case you don't see the connection between having enough tax revenue coming in to run your city.....
ReplyDeletesocialist, schmosolist! Taxes fund your city functions and schools.
I suspect that, aside from the Anonymous with the dictionary, anyone reading the definition of “socialism” and the excerpt from my comments would not see any relationship between the two.
ReplyDeleteResidential development means more residents. More residents means more demands for service on city government (e.g., the proposed library expansion) and the schools. Meeting those increased demands costs money. The bigger the property tax base, the less in property taxes each property owner pays. Conversely, the smaller the property tax base, the more in property taxes each property owner pays. I'm someone who thinks you and I should not have to pay higher property taxes because of residential development that does not generate enough property tax base to support the increased demand on public services it creates. If that makes me a socialist, then anyone with anyone who wants to protect themselves from higher property taxes is a socialist. And that means there are a lot of (silent) socialists out there.
Bill Connors
Typically property tax is set up so larger, more expensive homes subsidize smaller, less expensive homes and Commercial and Industrial properties subsidize all of us.
ReplyDeleteSomeone around here knows or can certainly figure out what the equilibrium tax amount is per home. That amount per home(regardless of value)that it costs to fund city services.
I think it's fair to assume that in Evansville the smaller homes do not generate enough property tax income to pay their per household share of the city budget.
This puts pressure on the city to either create more high value homes or create more economic development to increase the subsidy for the increased number of smaller homes being built. Just to keep even.
The fact that there may be a stronger market demand for smaller homes than larger ones doesn't change the fact that smaller homes don't usually generate enough tax to pay for themselves. Any positive impact on the school district for potential lack of school aged children in the home is irrelevant to the city's budget. The school district is separate.
The idea that you can have something that costs you more than it makes for you and make it up through volume simply isn't true.
I also don't think Bill can accurately be labeled a Socialist simply because he is not an Anarchist.