[Vision2020] When Moscow Doubles - Questioning the premise
Art Deco
deco at moscow.com
Mon May 22 08:06:12 PDT 2006
On growth, here's another issue:
Those espousing aggressive growth policies frequently argue that economic
growth will everyone's property tax burden.
There may be some communities in which this has happened. I don't know of
any, and until GMA or some similar organization actually asserts this, I do
not plan to research it at present.
>From experience: As the population of an area grows, even by adding
high-value creating economic engines, the individual tax burden for
residential property owners goes up and goes up much faster than inflation.
I was involved in several ways in economic development in the three northern
counties for many years. Some of the economic growth was generally
beneficial to the communities; some of it produced expensive disasters.
None of it resulted in a proportionately lower property tax burden for
residential property owners.
For a nearby example of the effect of growth on residential property taxes
over the last 25 years, one need only look at Post Falls and the surrounding
Rathdrum Prairie areas.
There are many reasons why the individual property tax burden goes up with
growth including the need to capitalize new infrastructure, to offset tax
breaks and other financial perks/incentives given to businesses/industries,
etc. Certain businesses profit much more handily by growth than the general
population who may be losers: Developers, sub-dividers, real estate,
retail, certain services... These, naturally, are the ones generally
pushing aggressive growth policies.
The kind of growth fostered by a community not only has huge consequences
for life-style, community "feel", etc but determines who are the winners and
losers in the tax liability game. For example, if a manufacturing company
employing 500 people were to be lured here by significant tax breaks, the
impact on the school system would eventually mean a huge property tax
increase for residential property owners. It is doubtful that the economic
benefits accrued to such residents by the new industry would match the
increase in their property taxes. For most property owners, there would be
a net loss. For certain developers, real estate, retailers, etc, there
would be a substantial gain.
Very simply put: There are two questions one should try to answer when
deciding upon a growth philosophy and/or a particular growth proposal:
1. Will such promote the kind of community in which I wish to live?
2. When all is said and done, what is the real cost/benefit expectations
of such to my family and the community?
Unfortunately, in trying to find probable answers to such questions, not
only does one have to put up with a lot of fact obscuring hype and
sophistical rhetoric, one also has to put up with a lot of outright lies.
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nils Peterson" <nils_peterson at wsu.edu>
To: "Jerry Weitz" <gweitz at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] When Moscow Doubles - Questioning the premise
> D-8 is a reference I don't understand.
>
> If the consensus here is that Lambert is wildly unrealistic, both based on
> anecdotal evidence and Census projection, and if the demographic that is
> arriving is post-children retirees, then we could ask a couple questions:
>
> 1. Is this passive growth (and demographic) alright, or should we be
> taking
> out ads in AARP magazine? How are we thinking about integrating these
> people
> into Moscow; lacking children, they may lack some of the means that many
> other people have to integrate themselves into the town.
>
> 2. Given 1-2% growth rate (not Lambert's 5%), what planning, organization,
> etc, should be undertaken? MarkS will note water. Keely will note the
> schools issues (driven by aging facilities, and flat, or declining?
> enrollment).
>
>
> On 5/21/06 10:05 PM, "Jerry Weitz" <gweitz at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>> Like Mark I do not see doubling potential for the Palouse in general.
>> What
>> would be the driving variables? Anecdotally, at the dental office, I
>> have
>> observed a moderate influx of retired folks relocating here, not families
>> with children. My basic premise for encouraging growth
>> (economic/business)
>> is to help bolster UI's fortunes through a research triangle. Hence, if
>> this has validity, then we need planning. Mark deserves credit for being
>> the commissioner who kept D-8 in Latah County. Mark really suffered
>> through a recall that was initiated by his efforts for D-8. jerry
>>
>> At 08:22 PM 5/21/06, Nils Peterson wrote:
>>> (Thanks Mark, for pointing out that I mis-addressed this; I did want it
>>> go
>>> into the general conversation)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the pivotal issue here is demographics. Who are these would-be
>>> doublers?
>>>
>>> They are not UI or NSA students. The demographic of 18-22 year olds is
>>> peaking and headed down. More likely the university will struggle to
>>> hold on
>>> to its position in an increasingly competitive market. WSU seems to be
>>> positioning itself as a graduate university. NSA may fare better than UI
>>> in
>>> that it has a very special market niche.
>>>
>>> The doublers are not university employees. See above. WSU's move
>>> up-market
>>> may increase its faculty numbers, but not hugely.
>>>
>>> What about high tech? Schweitzer et al? Harder to predict. The right
>>> company
>>> could grow from nothing today. More likely, if the right handful that
>>> are
>>> small today experienced double digit growth. Less likely, but possible,
>>> is a
>>> company re-locating here. Not a huge company. 100 employees. This makes
>>> a
>>> topic for this discussion, how would we recruit/ screen/ facilitate or
>>> impede such a company? Given my theme of identifying gov't & civic
>>> organizations that are needed for this doubling -- the Chamber and LEDC
>>> seem
>>> to be the organizations we have to do this work.
>>>
>>> Are the would-be doublers retirees? At age 50, I consider myself the end
>>> of
>>> the baby boom, and have watched recreational property that I might enjoy
>>> (like a place at the Oregon Coast) jump way up in price as the boomers
>>> ahead
>>> of me got similar ideas. Imagine a couple that have had good, steady
>>> employment for the last 20+ years. They purchased and paid off a home.
>>> It
>>> has appreciated significantly because of its location in an urban area,
>>> perhaps to $400,000 or more. This couple is 62, kids grown and gone, and
>>> they are tired of the urban life. They draw $50K in retirement from
>>> several
>>> sources. There are thousands of these people. Might they come to Moscow?
>>> This is a wild card, but unlike new high tech business, I'm not sure
>>> what
>>> gov't and civic organizations might be needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/21/06 8:34 AM, "Mark Solomon" <msolomon at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...more likely that we'll see a leveling of the growth rates between
>>>> the two: 0.75% annually for Moscow. Of course, we are a different
>>>> community with different amenities (such as a forested mountain just
>>>> outside of town) but I would like someone to explain why we should
>>>> either plan for or expect our population to double in 15 years when
>>>> there is no historical trend to indicate it will occur. We are not
>>>> Boise or Coeur d'Alene or Sandpoint or McCall or Kuna or Meridian
>>>> or....
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list