Should housing developers along the rail line pay a school impact fee to help fund future area schools?
-
A. Yes; growth is certain so plan now (746 Votes)
-
B. No; housing first, fee might tamp supply (243 Votes)
-
C. Open; need to hear more (184 Votes)
This is not a scientific poll — results reflect only the opinions of those voting.
21 responses to “Should housing developers along the rail line pay a school impact fee to help fund future area schools?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Whenever our local State government mention fee – its from Democrats. These greedy rascals just don’t have compassion on our over tax-burden citizens of this State. Their doing it during an election year. They are so confident, the voters in Hawaii will keep every Democrat incumbant in office in this tuesday’s general election. I really hope they are wrong.
They want this fee; they (Democrats) want to tax every driver in this State by the mileage they drive; our Democratic governor failed to have his tax increase on the vehicle weight and registration fee this year; but wait when the legislature convenes in 2017, that proposal will be back on the table and most likely approved because 2017 is not an election year.
To the citizens of this State, comes this Tuesday’s general election, please oust every Democrat incumbant out of office. This is our chance to stop the greediness of the tax addicted Democratic party.
Both government and commercial enterprizes including unregulated “professionals” –dentists, physical therapists and non-MD medical providers are getting ridiculously greedy. They earn more than MDs.
Excuse me, but the ones making money on development around the stations may or may not be Democrats, but they are definitely developers. If the developers and large land owners will receive substantial financial benefit from a public transportation infrastructure project, like rail, they should pay something for those benefits. And it shouldn’t be either schools or affordable housing; it should be both. This is a financing model applied successfully on other rail projects, so there’s no reason it can’t be used with ours.
democrats recieve the most donations from devvelopers. So that shows it is a democrat thing. How approves all of this development, democrats there is no repub in office. LOL
The reality is the housing that is going to be built by the transit stations will turn into SLUMS & GHETTOS as the poor do not take care of the housing they are in. Have look at any project like KPT or the Pupu’s in Waipahu as an example
of how they care for it. Yes the developers should be charged a fee and it should remain in an account to maintain the projects not to let our city Government throw it away on studies & stupid stuff like RUSTY THE RAIL THAT WILL NOT HELP ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC OR ASSIST IN GETTING TO UH MANOA
Nope… I think that most Democrats can see the problem of imposing this tax.
It’s not good for housing. It should be voluntary.
Ah yes,the old “voluntary tax” for developers.
I can only assume you feel the highly regressive rail tax should be voluntary too. Right?
No one pays taxes voluntarily! LOL What a silly comment!
And you republicans just believe in letting things deteriorate. Just remember you cannot have government services without paying for them. So if you don’t want to pay taxes, move to a country that doesn’t have them. Don’t be surprised though that they will probably institute taxes the day after you move there.
Boots says: “And you republicans just believe in letting things deteriorate.”
Oh, so it the Republican’s fault that Oahu’s parks are filthy and poorly kept and our roads are a mess and water main pipes burst almost daily? Do even read what you write?
Boots is a puppet.
Just plain “No” without the gratuitous editorializing about “housing first, fee might tamp supply.” The SA aways has to editorialize getting people to say things they don’t want to or not Answer. STOP ALREADY — just up or down.
Agree, keep it simple, Yes or No! And my answer is No!
One thing the hsta is good at is finding ways to tax more. How about we just de-certify and shut down the hsta and then allow society to function according to needs and choices of free individuals?
Is this the HSTA suggesting this or the DOE?
If the development is big, think Mililani, then having the developer build schools, parks etc is appropriate. If it is another surfboard shop in a retail complex No. It is a matter of scale. If there is enough population influx that the regular tax payer will need to put in more public infrastructure [i.e. police station, fire station, schools, wastewater substations, etc.] to support it … then yes.
The problem is they approve these CONDOS that sell for 1-3 million and cry that if there is a 1% DOE fee that people will not buy it.
This is BS, there has never been a project that was canceled because of a public school fee, get serious people.
Developers should pay for infrastructure upgrades and schools. We as taxpayers have to burden the cost ….look at the roads in the vicinity that they destroy when construction is in progress.
They should also be paying a lot more for sewer, water, and road upgrades. New developments will surely create increased use of the three.
Developers will just pass on the tax cost to whomever is buying so essentially it is just another tax passed on to the consumer. Just a more clever way of nailing the tax payer.
Consumers will have to pay the piper and it adds to the cost living which impact the taxpayers eventually by creating more homeless. High-rise will only become available to foreigners economically hurt the locals.