For years I have argued against impact fees to elected officials only to be rebuffed. I am repeatedly told how the fees charged are needed to deal with the infrastructure created by development. My argument has always been that when someone develops a piece of raw land, you get tax dollars, and you get to continue to get those tax dollars, year after year.
Now I see something happening that I feel bolsters my argument that they are just another revenue source with no real intended use. If impact fees are so necessary why is the Bay County BCC reducing theirs by 50% for 18 months. They say that this is to bolster home sales. Yet in the past they have argued that new residents place an undue burden on the current taxpayer, thus the fees are needed. I also read where other governments around the country are starting to look at this unnecessary burden that has been placed on citizens in the past. How long before we see a class action suit against governments asking them to either explain the sudden loss of a need for impact fees or to start refunding those unnecessary collections.
Now I see something happening that I feel bolsters my argument that they are just another revenue source with no real intended use. If impact fees are so necessary why is the Bay County BCC reducing theirs by 50% for 18 months. They say that this is to bolster home sales. Yet in the past they have argued that new residents place an undue burden on the current taxpayer, thus the fees are needed. I also read where other governments around the country are starting to look at this unnecessary burden that has been placed on citizens in the past. How long before we see a class action suit against governments asking them to either explain the sudden loss of a need for impact fees or to start refunding those unnecessary collections.