Why would existing residents ever agree to new development if they have to pay for it? (Either through taxes to upgrade infrastructure, or by needing to deal with insufficient infrastructure that doesn't get improved as needed) Maybe instead of directly performing the upgrades, developers should be paying extra to the government (either lump sum, or over N years) because in theory the government can then do a few large upgrades rather than developers doing many small ones, but the cost of new capacity should really be the responsibility of the people who need it (developers/new residents).
As to why people would agree to new development—they shouldn’t be allowed to veto it. They should get to decide what level of infrastructure the government will provide to the community. But omce they do that, theh shouldn’t get to discriminate against new residents by forcing those residents to pay a disproportionate share of the common infrastructure.
Part of the problem of this proposal is that you are treating everyone equally in this scenario, but not all development is equal. A single family dwelling creates a different impact than an apartment building. It requires different sewers, road frontage and utilities. Its cost is different. What you are proposing encourages expensive development. If a person pays the same whether they build high density housing or a McMansion, what motivation is there to actually solve the housing problem? If residents can't veto development, and communities can't put limits on it, you're left with very few tools to actually resolve important issues like urban sprawl that got us into this mess in the first place.
If you propose levying different taxes based on the type of development, then we're back around to where we started: shifting the burden of infrastructure to the owners and developers that are utilizing it.
Additionally, I would argue that's not how taxes work at all. There are many "use" based taxes: utilities, sales tax, special assessments, gas tax, toll roads, and so on.
EDIT: Additionally, when you say "proportionate share", I think many would argue that's what charging developers and new residents for new infrastructure is. They benefit from the new infrastructure, thus they pay for it.
Everyone that comprises the tax base that pays for the relevant infrastructure. In this case, state and local government.
> A single family dwelling creates a different impact than an apartment building. It requires different sewers, road frontage and utilities. Its cost is different. What you are proposing encourages expensive development.
On a per tax unit basis, apartments create much lower infrastructure cost that single family homes. An condo building with 100 units requires more sewer and road infrastructure than a single family home. But it’s got 100x the number of taxable units, and requires far less than 100x the infrastructure of a single family home.
> If a person pays the same whether they build high density housing or a McMansion, what motivation is there to actually solve the housing problem?
There is a natural incentive to build high density units in response to rising real estate prices, because you can make much more revenue per unit land. The market, unsurprisingly, provides the right incentives.
> If residents can't veto development, and communities can't put limits on it, you're left with very few tools to actually resolve important issues like urban sprawl that got us into this mess in the first place.
Urban sprawl was caused by existing residents legally requiring sprawl. For example, in my county, it’s illegal to build a house in most areas on less than 1/3 of an acre. I live in a pre-zoning law neighborhood where the lots are 1/5 that size. Even with the variances grandfathered in, a local developer had to fight for years to build three new houses conforming to the existing lot plan.
> Additionally, I would argue that's not how taxes work at all. There are many "use" based taxes: utilities, sales tax, special assessments, gas tax, toll roads, and so on.
Having a use-based tax that everyone pays is quite different than forcing new residents to foot the entire bill for shared infrastructure.
> EDIT: Additionally, when you say "proportionate share", I think many would argue that's what charging developers and new residents for new infrastructure is. They benefit from the new infrastructure, thus they pay for it.
Those people would be wrong. For example, people in my dense pre-zoning neighborhood pay our “proportionate share” for shared sewer mains and county roads. But 50 houses in my neighborhood pay about the same in taxes as 50 houses in a less dense area, but it cost the county way less to build sewer and road infrastructure to our 50 houses than to 50 houses in a less dense area.
For better or worse, our tax system is not built on paying proportionate to use. If it were, your point might be valid, but as I said, then new residents would get to avoid paying for a lot of other things they never used. If you charged new residents for the new infrastructure they require, then it’s not fair to make them pay for teachers and other public employees that retired before the new residents moved there. I’d take that deal in a heartbeat.
I also take issue with your use of the term "shared infrastructure". If you view all infrastructure as shared, then the existing infrastructure is being used "for free" by new residents, its costs having been payed for by previous residents. In your proposal the costs are loaded onto existing residents who payed for both old and new infrastructure, as opposed to new residents who only pay for the new. This would seem to balance out whatever new residents are paying in for "things they never used".
EDIT: I should address your point about urban sprawl. I would think that as long as it is cheap to build new, the incentive to infill cities is low. Developers and buyers will prefer new, and that creates a number of negative externalities beyond housing shortages. New construction is obviously necessary, but we need to find ways to align the incentives of developers and communities. I actually think we're off the mark here talking about new residents, since only residents that buy new are saddled with the extra burden. New residents that opt to infill existing neighborhoods do not. Perhaps the better option is to place the burden on the developers, but offer residents other incentives (such as property tax relief on new construction).
It's curious to me that so many people complain about gentrification in terms of destroying the nature of an existing community, but then we also have so many complaints about zoning laws that are designed to protect the visible characteristics of communities.
Rayiner's point is that current tax payers won't pay more, because new residents result in a higher tax base in the first place.
In California with Prop 13 and widespread rent control, this is especially true.
I feel like in California this devaluation argument is not really about economics but rather a proxy for making a case that might not be too politically correct when laid out as it is.
I disagree. The house might be worth less but the plot of land it is sitting on is worth a lot to a developer who wants to build a similar complex there.
The problem is that this doesn't work in practice for individual homeowners. It would only work if all the homeowners who own those "plots" required by that developer are willing/able to sell at once, and that happens approximately never.
Moreover, the value of the house isn't just important at the time of sale but also at times such as mortgage refinances. A drop (or lesser gain) in value can have real negative financial consequences well before any sale.
Perhaps it’s not like that everywhere. But from that background, it seems reasonable for the developer to pay for upgrades.
And to clarify, by new installations I mean paying for half a mile or more of infrastructure. Not a hookup, but running new stuff for a good distance.