Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
You pay for them over 15 years, which seems a reasonable amount of time to spread the cost over. The sidewalks themselves should last 60 years+ except minor repairs. Nevertheless, it should come from general taxation, not immediately adjacent property owners.
|
Sorry, I worded that poorly. Didn't mean the lifecycle isn't projected longer than 15 years (I assume it is) but that the annual hit to property taxes should be tied to that lifecycle and not a reduced 15 year span if a property owner chooses to have the levy paid out over a period of time.
In this scenario, if we live in the property for 10 years after a sidewalk replacement, we pay 66.6% of the owner's cost of the sidewalk, while the next owner living there 10 years pays 33.3% over the first 5 years of their ownership and zero after. The successive owners after that get the benefit of the sidewalk at no cost, until the time it has to be replaced again, when the process starts over.
While I agree the whole scenario could be avoided with the funds coming from general taxation, it would also be more fair in the short term if the payment of the sidewalk was tied to the lifecycle. Interest costs would rise proportionally, so the overall cost would be even higher, but it's the fairest way to spread the cost. It shouldn't be like sidewalk roulette, where if you happen to own the adjacent property at the time the city decides to replace, you bear proportionally more cost than owners who have bought the property 10-15 years after a replacement (and may have to pay local improvement levies for 0-5 years while getting the benefit of a sidewalk with 70% of its lifecycle left).
I'm sure someone much smarter than me determined that a 15 year repayment was the sweet spot for fairness and keeping the interest costs at a reasonable level, but it still annoys me.