My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-7-14-PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2014
>
05-7-14-PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/9/2015 3:33:34 PM
Creation date
9/22/2014 3:21:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
192
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Myth and Fact 11 <br />MYTH ONE FACTONE <br />Unfortunately for local governments, a growing body of evidence shows that <br />sprawling development often does not pay enough property tax to cover the serv- <br />ices it requires. A study conducted for a suburban community outside Milwaukee <br />found that public services for an average-price single-family house in that commu- <br />nity cost more than twice as much as the property taxes paid by the homeowner.12 <br />One reason for the disparity between property tax revenue and the cost of public <br />services is expenditures for public schools. Low-density suburbs and exurban areas <br />generally attract families with more school-age children. In fact, single-family <br />developments average 64 children for every 100 units, compared with only 21 chil- <br />dren for every 100 units of garden apartments and 19 children for every 100 units <br />of mid- to high-rise apartments.13 The reason is that multifamily housing attracts <br />predominantly childless couples, singles, and empty nesters. <br />And although apartment renters do not pay property tax directly, apartment owners <br />do. Apartments are also usually taxed at a higher commercial real estate tax rate,14 <br />so a typical mixed-use development with retail, office, and apartments may subsidize <br />the schools and other public services required by residents of low-density housing in <br />the same community. This phenomenon is further exacerbated because many multi- <br />family developments and retail and office establishments pay for their own trash dis- <br />posal, shuttle buses, and security. <br />Reducing the distance between homes, shops, and offices also reduces the cost of <br />public infrastructure. According to one of many studies, “The public capital and <br />operating costs for close-in, compact development [are] much lower than they <br />[are] for fringe, scattered, linear, and satellite development.”15 And many of these <br />studies do not take into account the advantages created by making public transit <br />20 <br />15 <br />10 <br />5 <br />0 <br />–5 <br />PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH: 2000–2010 <br />Families <br />with <br />No Children <br />16.0% <br />Nonfamily <br />Households <br />14.0% <br />Families <br />with Children <br />Under 18 <br />–3.0%PERCENTAGE GROWTH RATE <br />TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD <br />Source:Projections of Number of Households and Families in the United States: 1995–2010 <br />(Washington, D.C.:U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996).
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.