Quote:
Originally Posted by 81MC
The cost of supplying and maintain infrastructure to suburban developments is no where near recovered from the developers and home owners.
I’m not sure if it’s been rectified, but there was a time when services would be put in to these neighbourhoods, without having any tax coming in because the developers paid tax on the land value before work, infrastructure and people were moved in. I really hope this has changed, hopefully someone in the biz can school me?
|
The capital costs for servicing are paid for by the developer per hectare. For a while they only recovered the cost of the extension of the lines but not things like the capital cost of increasing the capacity of things like water treatment.
This was fixed I believe in the last round of increases. Bunk would be the best person to explain this as he has worked on both sides. I believe what developers don’t contribute to is the increased road infrastructure costs for arterial roads and services where expenses increase by area services rather than by population using the service.
What one should remember is that the modern burb is as dense as Hilhurst. They achieve quite high densities compared to existing communities. Again the sprawl problem is the boomers fault. Pre density increases neighbourhoods like the Bonnevistas and the loop of not quite innercity where NIMBYs continually oppose density increases like Brentwood.
Sprawl is caused my the amount of land you occupy not where that land is located. Also when people do property tax calculations that show that a suburb over its lifecycle will never pay for its costs they fail to account for the land value increases of every home closer to the inner city as population goes up the value of the most desirable land up.