[Grovenet] Was: "economic cancer"?/now govt saving money

[Dick La Jeunesse]

Like lottery proceeds and cigarette taxes, SDC's appear to be much better 
than the actual yield to the infrastructure.  As you so rightly point out, 
Dale, any funds that go into the general fund are hopelessly lost to their 
original intent, and instead are spent on politically expedient programs 
that get folks reelected.

I have analyzed potential SDC funds in four different school districts in 
three states over the years and each time discovered the great truth that 
one can not begin to charge enough to make even the smallest dent in a 
school budget or a city services budget.  Do the math.  At say $1,000 per 
unit on 200 housing units, the net would be less than 0.005% of a $35M 
school district budget - even it it all made it there (which it certainly 
won't).  Double or triple it - still won't hit the radar screen. Then recall 
that new buildings are built with bonded indebtedness that is closely 
regulated by the state.  Ask the folks in Banks how well SDC's worked out 
for them.

Finally, SDC's apply only to new construction.  I have seen the devastation 
that hits a school district when the building stops and enrollment declines. 
  That effect would be compounded by any reliance on SDC's to balance the 
budget.

SDC's sound great in principle, but fall far short in reality.  Property 
taxes were the most effective way to fund schools until they were made 
impractical by the Supreme Court ruling in 1973 banning inequitable funding 
of school districts.

>From: "Dale Wiley" <dale.wiley at netzero.com>
>Reply-To: dale.wiley at netzero.com,        Forest Grove local interests list 
><grovenet at rdrop.com>
>To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
>Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Was:  "economic cancer"?/now govt saving money
>Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:35:37 -0700
>
>Fund accounting can also be called creative accounting. You can do soooo
>many things with fund accounting.
>
>Systems development charges would be an excellent way to fund public
>infrastructure. Unless you do it like the CFG does and take a parks
>development fee, put it in the general fund and let your parks program
>struggle for every dollar it gets. to maintain current facilities let alone
>build new ones.
>
>There is a group organized to lobby the Legislature to allow schools
>development charges to new homes and projects built in Oregon. I became
>aware of this group about 2 weeks ago, and intend to join and participate 
>to
>lobby the cry babies in the Legislature to allow the systems development
>fees and let the builders pay for the burden their activities place on a
>school districts infrastructure.
>
>Since I pay weight mile taxes for my trucks, I think it only fair the
>builders pay towards school infrastructure.
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office 
Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/