| . |
Editorial
Impact
Fees: Third Rail of Vermont Politics
By Martin Harris
People
who want to be seen and admired as unusually bright, gifted, perceptive,
and so on (lots of this particular breed in politics) are fond of the defensive
quip "we really don’t know; it’s never really been tried in its true form"
when challenged with, say, the starvation statistics for the communist
governance model, or, say, the die-while-waiting statistics for the single-payer
socialized medicine model.
On the fund-raising side
of governance, you’d think every conceivable profit-center model has been
tried: income, sales, and property taxes; tariffs and excise levies; poll
taxes and sumptuary taxes; labor levees and currency debasement; and so
on. In the continual quest for more tangible money, some governments have
resorted to taxation of intangible assets (the supposed value of real property
anywhere is about as intangible as the supposed value of stocks and bonds
in Florida, but that hasn’t prevented taxation of either category) and
others have resorted to value-added, luxury, and "wheel" taxes. Latest
tempting idea: congestion pricing for highways and other public services
like rush-hour plane tickets.
There’s only one potential
revenue pocket which hasn’t yet felt the grasping hand of the tax collector
very much: impact fees. You can argue about whether or impact fees have
been tried in their "true form" (I’d say they have) but you have to concede
that they haven’t been tried very widely. Even Vermont, at the very pinnacle
of successful and frequently quite innovative citizen taxation (think back
to the brief and unconstitutional adventure into the State level taxation
of interest on Federal obligations) using a range of different measures,
has, so far, eschewed impact fees except for a very few, very small, very
local exceptions.
They’re not even discussed
in polite/political society, which explains why they’ve been studiously
ignored by the folks in the paragraph above. Conversely, they’re the specific
subject of this column. As used to be said about any mention of Social
Security in politics –"touch it and you’re dead"—the same fear seems to
pervade all those venues where all sorts of other governmental revenue-enhancers
are so avidly fantasized.
At first glance, impact fees
–the concept of new development, residential or otherwise, paying at last
some fraction of the new governmental infra-structure costs it creates
simply by establishing residence and claiming "free" services—would seem
to be a no-brainer; after all, the alternative is that the newcomers demand
and receive subsidies from those already there, without benefit of vote,
a sort of taxation without representation. Historically, though, it hasn’t
worked that way. In Vermont, not that many decades back, there was the
widespread opposite of an impact fee: new residents were attracted into
town with the promise of a three- or five-year property tax forgiveness.
Middlebury old-timers will recall how the now-departed Standard Register
was attracted into town partly with the promise of a property-tax moratorium.
And, indeed, there was little
interest in impact fees when new development impact was relatively low:
when annual per-pupil school costs, in the early ‘60’s, were in the $300
range, that number was just about balanced by the average $200 house-tax
bill and the 0.7 of a student coming out of that house. Today the average
tax bill is in the $3,000 range, and only 0.5 of a student comes out of
the statistically average house, but per-pupil cost is north of $12 thousand.
You can see where impact fees, now, are a lot more attractive than they
used to be, for the old-timers not enthusiastic about subsidizing the newcomers
under the new financial rules, and, conversely, a lot more unattractive
for new development which now generates a lot more impact, in both scope-of-services
and cost, than it used to, and is understandably a lot less enthusiastic
about paying any more of the new costs it generates than it has to.
Martin Harris is a former
Chairman of Citizens for Property Rights
# # # # #

|