« All you need to know about EPWU | Main | All the Proof I Needed »

February 22, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Make no mistake about it. It's an indisputed fact. Impact Fees were Ed Archuletta's idea. NOT PLANNING. He tried to get Impact Fees shortly after he was hired by the PSB as EPWU's general manager in 1988, but failed. He tried againin 2008 and succeeded. I know, because he told me shortly after I was appointed to CIAC six years ago.

Most major cities in Texas have Impact Fees, including Dallas and Houston. I'd consider those cities pro business. Wouldn't you? This isn't about pro business or anti business, pro growth or anti growth. It's still about fairness. Frankly, I don't give a damn about how much developers make. We're fortunate to live in the Capitalist system, imperfect as it is, it's still the best economic system devised be man. Let developers, or any other business, make whatever the market will bear, but NOT on the backs of the rest of us.

Regardless of what you've been privy to, I'm still not sure what the outcome will be at the public meeting March 4th. I do hope both sides will be represented adequately. Thanks for bringing the issue up in your blog, David. I know you sincerely believe you're right (even though you're not). But I hope lot's of folks read your blog with the comments in order to be more informed about the issues, then make up their own minds.

David the only one grasping at straws is you. Face the fact. Its time you stop misrepresenting facts.

If growth pays for itself, then why do we need a QoL bond issue every 10 years? Peppers is not anti-growth or even necessarily anti-sprawl (our current paradigm), but believes that business should carry its own weight and not offload its costs onto the taxpayer (e.g., Woody World).

So if sprawl is the modus operandi, then let it pay for itself. One other caveat: we have to assure that future generations have sufficient resources to provide for their needs in terms of water, land and QoL.

David, City Planning developed only the land use assumptions--and those are almost identical to what the PSB's consultant come up with last time (one and seven percent differences in units and population).

The Capital Improvements Plan is entirely devised by the PSB and their consultant--and that drives the impact fee up or down. Hell, they've got it posted on line and there isn't a single City Planning finger print on it.

People should read the report themselves instead of read this nonsense.

http://home.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-clerk/agendas.php


Believe what you want but the PSB report and their request to expand a water treatment plant (the item driving the increases) are THE ONLY pertinent facts here.

Rotten Peppers,

QOL are elective and you don't even seem to understand what they pay for (not water infrastructure or streets).

If you weren't such an idiot you'd go back to the numerous COs and another bond election where money was sought for infrastructure (PSB was flush with cash and still took all that borrowed money and is doing nothing with it so says their budget document $30 million doing nothing).

You're just not smart enough to be in this conversation.

David's Conscience,

Nice try - you linked the agenda that doesn't show PSB requesting any help with expansion. In fact - you should read the most interesting part of the what you linked to. The city has agreed to pay back with interest impact fees not spent on waste water or water expansion needs - and it's likely those monies won't be since the city putting that cash into the general fund.

How does that work out for you? It's a tax for PSB, but the city is already admitting they're likely to refund it mainly because they are collecting for themselves - not the PSB.

Again - the four of you who won't quit are siding on the side of high taxes and I can't understand why.

DK, parks, libraries, even police and fire stations should be paid for by development. I can understand how an arena or museum would require a bond issue.

What is it with you builders that you shrug off the costs your business generates for taxpayers. You are a bunch of corporate welfare junkies like Hunt and Foster.

Parks are paid for by the developer. Police and fire stations aren't needed, otherwise they'd be included. The property taxes paid by those new homes covers all of that.

To use your reasoning - you're a welfare junky using those roads every day to get to work.

Look, you're out of your league. Lobbing bombs at the city manager because she was on duty when they bombed that crappy building your dad forced on El Paso is what you are good at. Don't try to talk about grown-up topics.

No, property taxes do not cover the cost of police and fire. Whats even more incredulous is you use of all things the El Paso Times as proof to support your argument.

The comments to this entry are closed.