This a controversial subject but Dallas is going to experiment with it in a new rail corridor and see how it works out, they produced a real interesting report (see link below). Makes for interesting reading on the history of value capture as a funding source as well as some ideas of how they intend to tackle this new project.
http://www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/transitrail/CtnBlt/CottonBelt-iFi-FinalReport.pdf
Power point presentation:
http://www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/transitrail/CtnBlt/TexITE9-20-12v3.pdf
CMStPnP Power point presentation: http://www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/transitrail/CtnBlt/TexITE9-20-12v3.pdf
I made the link live for you (all you need to do is hit the "Enter" key after you paste the link into your post and it will be a live link when you hit "POST").
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Bump.
I started having misgivings about this piece of work when I saw them trying to defend Roosevelt's high-speed highway proposal of the late '30s. (In their defense, they do mention that there will be some kind of concession, rather than additional charge, to the people immediately adjacent to or otherwise inconvenienced by the existence of the rail infrastructure ... but then they don't seem to be considering it further.)
Getting developers to pay a 'fair share' of infrastructure developments that benefit them -- directly or indirectly -- is scarcely a new subject, although at least some of the people involved with producing the report seem to assume it is (well, 'it's new to YOU, folks... ;-})
The major thing of value they propose is the use of the smart-card infrastructure, both to tie the fare paid to the individual customer's location (or his or her municipality's contribution to the various costs), and to establish which communities or projects are most benefiting from the transit infrastructure. (A project I did many years ago also involved extending a facility like this to area businesses and other services that might be associated with rail transportation, to give a clearer picture of the cognate benefits).
Their knowledge of the realities of real-estate development seem a little weird. And I was not at all reassured that they slipped in that little mention of how they were making development safe for 'foreign investment capital' and then a bit later, failed to mention how the access process or appeals process for ongoing appraisal would be conducted.
I well remember the crap that was pulled on us after the 'fair market value' rule in establishing real-estate comps ... and then tax rates derived from those comps... was instituted in New Jersey. This was at the time that Eddie Murphy bought the Sykes house, essentially tore it down and built a huge complex, etc. (perhaps Joe Piscopo, who had lived across the street from me, told him about the neighborhood). The 8.5 million dollar cost of this was duly put into the 'market value' for properties in that district.
Now, remember that the fair-market value part of the law is complicated by the appraisal rules, which are statutory (and deprecated) in that they are estimates based only on factors like numbers of rooms, and greatly understate the value of improvements. That immediately implies... for Democrats, at least... that the residual of FMV HAS to be in the land, and everybody's tax base is revised 'accordingly'. Never mind that FMV of available vacant property is nowhere near this synthetic assumption.
I missed having my taxes go up by over $20,000 per year by being ONE street over from the affected district. My by-then-retired third-group and junior-primary (equivalent to JK and advanced-K programs today) were not so lucky. They lived in a big old house that had been paid off forty years or more before, and thought they were safely fixed for retirement. No such luck -- there was no way in Hades they could afford the increased tax bill, and any prospective sale of the property was devalued both by the existing improvements and by the higher applicable tax rate.
It didn't help that we (Bergen County) were being assessed by somebody out of Hudson County, where the land use and improvements are on a very different scale, and lots are tiny if not essentially ZLL.
Naturally there was a firestorm of opinion about this, culminating in a request to the City Council to have the matter of appraisals taken up legally. The City Council -- chaired by a person who lived in a part of town with little lots -- refused to make the appropriate request. This was my first practical firsthand encounter with perversion of democracy. It still affects how I feel about the general subject of fair contribution to public affairs...
RME
Welp, looks like they are going to try this out............
http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/01/Council%20approves%20guidelines%20for%20private%20development%20of%20Texas%20commuter%20line.aspx
Isn't it possible to add value to fare cards in DC?
OvermodNaturally there was a firestorm of opinion about this, culminating in a request to the City Council to have the matter of appraisals taken up legally. The City Council -- chaired by a person who lived in a part of town with little lots -- refused to make the appropriate request. This was my first practical firsthand encounter with perversion of democracy. It still affects how I feel about the general subject of fair contribution to public affairs...
Overmod,
I'm sure you are well aware that New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the country. There is a stream of retired people leaving the state because of the property taxes.
John
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.