Comments on: The Big Mo’ http://www.friendsofarley.org/2005/05/14/the-big-mo/ Re-Elect Steve Farley as Arizona LD28 State Representative in 2008 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:30:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Steve Farley http://www.friendsofarley.org/2005/05/14/the-big-mo/#comment-30 Steve Farley Fri, 20 May 2005 15:44:51 +0000 http://www.friendsofarley.com/2005/05/14/the-big-mo/#comment-30 1) yes (within legal limits--see below); 2) yes. That's part of why I am running in the first place. The reason our budget is always in crisis is because we are not recovering the cost of growth from those who benefit from it. I will be increasing impact fees to appropriate levels, and I will be rescinding Fred's six-year delay of commercial impact fees. Unfortunately, the City Charter requires a vote of the people to raise construction contracting sales taxes, so that is much harder. We tried that through our transit initiative that went to voters in 2003, but SAHBA and their friends wrote the big checks to knock that down. I will be working with neighboring municipalities and the county--at this point the city is the problem child, the entity that has been afraid to stand up for its own taxpayers by instituting fees where needed to get the cost of growth off our backs. 1) yes (within legal limits–see below); 2) yes. That’s part of why I am running in the first place. The reason our budget is always in crisis is because we are not recovering the cost of growth from those who benefit from it. I will be increasing impact fees to appropriate levels, and I will be rescinding Fred’s six-year delay of commercial impact fees. Unfortunately, the City Charter requires a vote of the people to raise construction contracting sales taxes, so that is much harder. We tried that through our transit initiative that went to voters in 2003, but SAHBA and their friends wrote the big checks to knock that down. I will be working with neighboring municipalities and the county–at this point the city is the problem child, the entity that has been afraid to stand up for its own taxpayers by instituting fees where needed to get the cost of growth off our backs.

]]> By: michael http://www.friendsofarley.org/2005/05/14/the-big-mo/#comment-29 michael Fri, 20 May 2005 01:32:21 +0000 http://www.friendsofarley.com/2005/05/14/the-big-mo/#comment-29 Will you commmit to increase Tucson city construction taxes and/or impact fees to ensure that construction in Tucson is, at minimum, revenue neutral? Second, will you work with nearby municipalities and the county to ensure that the impact of new construction in the greater tucson metro area does not result in additional tax burdens on Tucson taxpayers? Will you commmit to increase Tucson city construction taxes and/or impact fees to ensure that construction in Tucson is, at minimum, revenue neutral? Second, will you work with nearby municipalities and the county to ensure that the impact of new construction in the greater tucson metro area does not result in additional tax burdens on Tucson taxpayers?

]]> By: Steve Farley http://www.friendsofarley.org/2005/05/14/the-big-mo/#comment-28 Steve Farley Thu, 19 May 2005 17:28:33 +0000 http://www.friendsofarley.com/2005/05/14/the-big-mo/#comment-28 It's the typical number juggling we've come to expect from an industry bent on maximizing profits for out-of-state interests. You'll note on their own page, their "data" for the "City of Tucson" is actually data from the Tucson Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which includes all homebuilding in the whole area, including Marana, Sahuarita, and Oro Valley, all of whom have higher impact fees, plus a construction contracting sales tax. It would be a safe bet that even with their skewed and self-serving methodology, that the City of Tucson is losing big money with each new home built within city limits, thanks to our tardy and scrawny impact fees and lack of other growth-recovery financial instruments. Perhaps this effort is really SAHBA calling for higher taxes & fees on growth in the City of Tucson, to catch up with the other regional municipalities? It’s the typical number juggling we’ve come to expect from an industry bent on maximizing profits for out-of-state interests. You’ll note on their own page, their “data” for the “City of Tucson” is actually data from the Tucson Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which includes all homebuilding in the whole area, including Marana, Sahuarita, and Oro Valley, all of whom have higher impact fees, plus a construction contracting sales tax. It would be a safe bet that even with their skewed and self-serving methodology, that the City of Tucson is losing big money with each new home built within city limits, thanks to our tardy and scrawny impact fees and lack of other growth-recovery financial instruments.

Perhaps this effort is really SAHBA calling for higher taxes & fees on growth in the City of Tucson, to catch up with the other regional municipalities?

]]> By: michael http://www.friendsofarley.org/2005/05/14/the-big-mo/#comment-27 michael Thu, 19 May 2005 03:04:19 +0000 http://www.friendsofarley.com/2005/05/14/the-big-mo/#comment-27 Steve, What's your take on the new 'public information' ads by SAHBA purporting that a new study shows that new home construction more than pays its way with new tax revenue without any new impact fees? http://www.sahba.org/Impact%20Fees.htm Steve,

What’s your take on the new ‘public information’ ads by SAHBA purporting that a new study shows that new home construction more than pays its way with new tax revenue without any new impact fees? http://www.sahba.org/Impact%20Fees.htm

]]>