[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
SG-W:/ urban residential developments
- Subject: SG-W:/ urban residential developments
- From: Anne Heise <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:54:15 -0400 (EDT)
> So the challenge still stands. Does anyone know of a study thatindicates
> that *urban* residential development in general is a tax drain, and that
> business and commercial development is generally a tax benefit?
Ken, you may recall my recent email that stated that I too think urban
residential projects are not covered by the studies I and others cited.
Further, that I think these developments can be positive, and the
conditions under which I think urban residential development is likely to
be a tax benefit. Briefly, these are that they 1) fit the existing
infrastructure, 2) don't abuse nature.
I think your citicism of Barry's and Phil's postings on this topic are due
to miscommunication. I believe they think some - perhaps even most in
downtown AA - urban residential developments can be "tax positive".
I suspect that they agree that studies of urban residential development
would be intrinsically low in generalizability due to the dramatically
different conditions across urban development. For example, some require
massive public infrastructure investments or generate large student
populations. Others don't. I believe suburban studies are much stronger
because the conditions are more invariant (i.e., most rural developments
fail the two tests above).
This means to me that locating studies of the net tax cost of urban
residential development isn't particularly important. However, analyzing
*particular* urban residential projects is very much so.
smartgrowth-washtenaw: Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
Postings to: email@example.com For info, send
email to firstname.lastname@example.org with a one-line message body of "info