[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SG-W:/ urban residential developments

I agree with Doug on this.  It's certainly possible to do bad urban
residential development that is tax negative.  I certainly won't argue that.
My contention is that it's also possible to do urban residential development
that isn't tax negative, and the studies cited so far don't speak to that.

The only reason I brought up this topic was that the statements being made
didn't seem to allow for the possibility that urban residential development
could be tax positive.  I don't see that conclusion in the studies I've seen
on the topic, which as Doug points out are often based on suburban

Thanks to Doug for trying to point out common ground.

Ken Clark

----- Original Message -----
From: Anne Heise <aheise@orchard.wccnet.org>
Subject: SG-W:/ urban residential developments

> Ken wrote:
> > 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.
> Doug

smartgrowth-washtenaw:  Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw

Postings to:  smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net      For info, send
email to majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info