July 24, 2005
Moratorium on PUDS?
A friend sends this:
Time is running out for input on how development in South Haven will occur. Glenn Sperry has submitted a proposal to the Planning Commission suggesting a nine month moratorium on development (with the exception of single family homes on a single lot.)
The idea will be something like this:
SOUTH HAVEN: PLANNING FOR ITS FUTURE
We believe that South Haven is at a critical moment.
There are about 1000 housing units under construction in, or proposed for, South Haven. In addition, there are proposed developments in neighboring townships that will also increase demand on City services. (We know that the City’s water pressure has been compromised this summer even before most of these planned developments have even been built.)
We are City of South Haven residents who believe that we don’t have all the information we need to decide what kind-- or how much-- development is good for South Haven.
We propose a nine-month halt or moratorium on city council approval of new multi and single family residential Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) to carefully study the impact of such development. The proposal would not include the construction of single-family residences.
We suggest that the City take time to study issues such as:
The effect of rapid and large development on our streets, sewers, water, electrical grid, and emergency services.
The diversion of general fund property tax revenues to fund the infrastructure needs of developers (TIF: Tax Incemental Financing)..
The consequence of dense development on our natural environment, access to our water, green space and residential quality of life.
The interpretation of the Master Plan and proposed zoning ordinance changes that will permit development in the downtown that is higher and denser than ever before.
The impact on our city of development in neighboring townships.
-Contact your city council representatives and encourage them to carefully study these and other development issues. (Email addresses and phone numbers for City Council members can be found at www.south-haven.com .)
-Call City staff with your questions and concerns.
-Attend or watch City Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings and stay informed.
Stand up and be heard. Attend the public hearing concerning changes to the PUD (Planned Unit Development)
ordinance held August 4 at 7:00 in City Hall.
Together we can promote responsible development while maintaining the uniqueness and livability of our town and its neighborhoods.
Ad paid for by Citizens for Responsible Development
Another friend sends me this:
To shift gears somewhat, we keep hearing that denser development means more money. That is not necessarily the case. The law of supply and demand says a limited commodity can be more valuable than a more widely available one. What would happen if South Haven never built another house or condo? If people still wanted to be here, the value of the available properties would increase. So would tax revenue as they were sold. This justifies the establishment of high standards (including adequate infrastructure) in return for permission to develop. If the City wants more development, it had better start moving on the new water intake as well as sewage treatment plant expansion/replacement. That will require investment which won't come from property improvements in the DDA TIF district, even though a significant part of the demand will presumably come from there. The City can't very well sell the old sewer plant until they have a new one unless we all agree not to flush for a year or two.
All food for thought.
Posted by Elaine at July 24, 2005 08:02 AM
Comments
Not sure on the comment that denser development means more money. I don't recall ever hearing that as a justification for denser development. And it should never be used as justification.
Arguments for denser development are made around reducing the individual costs of infrastructure (more property owners to spread the cost of water/sewer, roads, etc across), preservation of green space (cluster more units into one area and leave other areas open), and combating urban sprawl (similar to green space argument).
Also, in terms of increasing selling prices - those do not equate to more money in city coffers. The combination of Headlee and Proposal A creates a situation that those who owned their property prior to the increase in selling price actually see a drop in their municipal taxes (barring no home/property expansion or voted millage rate increases).
Sounds absolutely backwards, but that is what happens. Only new construction adds to the tax base.
Posted by: Larry King at July 27, 2005 10:46 AM
Larry,
I am sure that new construction and the tax revenue from new construction is what the observer was discussing.
DDA, the mega-force behind all the development being discussed (Celery Pond, Kentucky Ave. and The Bohn Site) could double their annual windfall of purloined property tax (TIF) from $1 million a year to $2 million a year, maybe more.
That's a tidy sum for city planning fashioned in the singular, tunnelled vision of the DDA Board.
Sales of existing homes do, indeed, restore the taxable property value to the current selling price. Homes sold will pay considerably more property taxes than those owned by residents in their homes before Proposition A in the early 90s, especially with increased real value.
A bit tongue in cheek, perhaps, but if large numbers of disgruntled citizens all decide to sell out and move because South Haven gets despoiled by developers....the city could have an all-around property tax bonanza! And some of THAT might even go in the general fund for everytone rather than just the DDA! That may be the only "everybody wins!" scenario. EEEEEK!
Posted by: Elaine at July 27, 2005 02:51 PM
Check this out
Posted by: John at August 23, 2005 04:23 PM