News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Seattle looks to rein in state policy used to push back on big projects. Parent comment

Re:Seattle looks to rein in state policy used to push back o... by jetrink on Monday October 07, 2019 @01:10PM (#21183279)
Why are developers expected to solve these problems? With more people living there, there will be a larger tax base to support services and infrastructure in the area. The city is the entity that should be building bridges and the residents (present and future) are the ones who should be funding it. By all means, the developers should pay market value for the land, but expecting them to fund bridge maintenance nearby just doesn't make sense to me.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Seattle looks to rein in state policy used to push back o... by alistairSH on Monday October 07, 2019 @03:53PM (#21185242)
While I understand your point, those new residents don't generate new taxes instantly. Development itself takes time - residents trickle in. And one years worth of taxes likely isn't enough to fund infrastructure.

So, if there's no kick-in from the developer, it could be years or decades before funding is in place.

I agree that it's not (directly) the developer's problem to solve. But, to the extend it might make their development faster or possible, they should have an interest in kicking in funds. And communities should rightly ask for that money.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Seattle looks to rein in state policy used to push back o... by jetrink on Monday October 07, 2019 @06:04PM (#21186477)
Isn't this the problem that municipal bonds are supposed to solve?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Seattle looks to rein in state policy used to push back o... by alistairSH on Monday October 07, 2019 @07:44PM (#21187213)
Sure, but that costs more than getting the developer to foot the bill.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Seattle looks to rein in state policy used to push back o... by ericd on Tuesday October 08, 2019 @02:58AM (#21189501)
The developer will pass those costs along to the buyers of the new housing. Which means you effectively want those people to subsidize the existing residents.

Besides that, making new development extremely expensive with all this haggling is one of the major reasons for the housing crisis.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Seattle looks to rein in state policy used to push back o... by snowwrestler on Monday October 07, 2019 @01:47PM (#21183791)
This sort of quid pro quo on infrastructure funding is not uncommon and big developers are familiar with it as a concept.

The city where I live made re-development of an old railyard contingent on funding a new bridge over the tracks that were still active. It worked out great for everyone; now there's a nice new neighborhood and fewer accidents on the new bridge, which is wider and straighter.

[ Parent | on HN ]