RM Cluster Overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

Why not just charge every home buyer and home seller a $10,000 fee? That would cut back the number of homes being sold and decrease the total increase of new kids. Then they can use that money to pay for the new school. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not just charge every home buyer and home seller a $10,000 fee? That would cut back the number of homes being sold and decrease the total increase of new kids. Then they can use that money to pay for the new school. Problem solved.

Other problems created.

Also, a new high school currently costs about $155 million.

https://apps.montgomerycountymd.gov/BASISCAPITAL/Common/Project.aspx?ID=P096510

$155,620,000 divided by $10,000 = 15,562 sales. The number of households in Rockville is around 25,000.

Note that this would affect both buyers and sellers.

Also note that the Montgomery County Council did approve an increase in the recordation tax, as a way to increase capital funding for MCPS, and that Nancy Floreen's vote for the recordation tax increase was the likely reason why the realtors did not support her when she ran for county executive.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/real-estate/county-council-approves-recordation-tax-increases/

[Anonymous]

It costs money to run and staff a school not just to build it. Since property taxes would likely be lower for condos, that burden would fall more heavily on the existing single family homeowners.

In places like New England they fund schools by having very high property taxes, this ironically also keeps real estate values lower and more stable, and prevents overdevelopment, but with the loss of the SALT deduction that's not likely to be popular in MoCo.

IMHO you are foolish to give away top tier school district slots to developers who will eagerly use it as a selling point/higher price justification but who will then not be on the hook to help pay for the schools. You have effectively just done a wealth transfer to the developer at the expense of either school quality or existing homeowners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It costs money to run and staff a school not just to build it. Since property taxes would likely be lower for condos, that burden would fall more heavily on the existing single family homeowners.

In places like New England they fund schools by having very high property taxes, this ironically also keeps real estate values lower and more stable, and prevents overdevelopment, but with the loss of the SALT deduction that's not likely to be popular in MoCo.

IMHO you are foolish to give away top tier school district slots to developers who will eagerly use it as a selling point/higher price justification but who will then not be on the hook to help pay for the schools. You have effectively just done a wealth transfer to the developer at the expense of either school quality or existing homeowners.

Developers pay impact fees. And property owners pay property taxes. And renters pay rent to property owners, who use the money for property taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just charge every home buyer and home seller a $10,000 fee? That would cut back the number of homes being sold and decrease the total increase of new kids. Then they can use that money to pay for the new school. Problem solved.

Other problems created.

Also, a new high school currently costs about $155 million.

https://apps.montgomerycountymd.gov/BASISCAPITAL/Common/Project.aspx?ID=P096510

$155,620,000 divided by $10,000 = 15,562 sales. The number of households in Rockville is around 25,000.

Note that this would affect both buyers and sellers.

Also note that the Montgomery County Council did approve an increase in the recordation tax, as a way to increase capital funding for MCPS, and that Nancy Floreen's vote for the recordation tax increase was the likely reason why the realtors did not support her when she ran for county executive.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/real-estate/county-council-approves-recordation-tax-increases/

If we want to penalize people for bringing in new children for the schools then it makes perfect sense to race homebuyers and sellers of existing properties. Why do you disagree? Because it possibly impact you at some point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just charge every home buyer and home seller a $10,000 fee? That would cut back the number of homes being sold and decrease the total increase of new kids. Then they can use that money to pay for the new school. Problem solved.

Other problems created.

Also, a new high school currently costs about $155 million.

https://apps.montgomerycountymd.gov/BASISCAPITAL/Common/Project.aspx?ID=P096510

$155,620,000 divided by $10,000 = 15,562 sales. The number of households in Rockville is around 25,000.

Note that this would affect both buyers and sellers.

Also note that the Montgomery County Council did approve an increase in the recordation tax, as a way to increase capital funding for MCPS, and that Nancy Floreen's vote for the recordation tax increase was the likely reason why the realtors did not support her when she ran for county executive.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/real-estate/county-council-approves-recordation-tax-increases/

If we want to penalize people for bringing in new children for the schools then it makes perfect sense to race homebuyers and sellers of existing properties. Why do you disagree? Because it possibly impact you at some point.

Oh and how much is a new wing on Rm? Not a new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It costs money to run and staff a school not just to build it. Since property taxes would likely be lower for condos, that burden would fall more heavily on the existing single family homeowners.

In places like New England they fund schools by having very high property taxes, this ironically also keeps real estate values lower and more stable, and prevents overdevelopment, but with the loss of the SALT deduction that's not likely to be popular in MoCo.

IMHO you are foolish to give away top tier school district slots to developers who will eagerly use it as a selling point/higher price justification but who will then not be on the hook to help pay for the schools. You have effectively just done a wealth transfer to the developer at the expense of either school quality or existing homeowners.

Developers pay impact fees. And property owners pay property taxes. And renters pay rent to property owners, who use the money for property taxes.

Developers impact fees are clearly insufficient in MoCo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It costs money to run and staff a school not just to build it. Since property taxes would likely be lower for condos, that burden would fall more heavily on the existing single family homeowners.

In places like New England they fund schools by having very high property taxes, this ironically also keeps real estate values lower and more stable, and prevents overdevelopment, but with the loss of the SALT deduction that's not likely to be popular in MoCo.

IMHO you are foolish to give away top tier school district slots to developers who will eagerly use it as a selling point/higher price justification but who will then not be on the hook to help pay for the schools. You have effectively just done a wealth transfer to the developer at the expense of either school quality or existing homeowners.

Developers pay impact fees. And property owners pay property taxes. And renters pay rent to property owners, who use the money for property taxes.

Developers impact fees are clearly insufficient in MoCo.

The problem is developers fund county councilmembers campaigns and in turn, they give them exemption from these fees. It's a cozy arrangement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It costs money to run and staff a school not just to build it. Since property taxes would likely be lower for condos, that burden would fall more heavily on the existing single family homeowners.

In places like New England they fund schools by having very high property taxes, this ironically also keeps real estate values lower and more stable, and prevents overdevelopment, but with the loss of the SALT deduction that's not likely to be popular in MoCo.

IMHO you are foolish to give away top tier school district slots to developers who will eagerly use it as a selling point/higher price justification but who will then not be on the hook to help pay for the schools. You have effectively just done a wealth transfer to the developer at the expense of either school quality or existing homeowners.

Developers pay impact fees. And property owners pay property taxes. And renters pay rent to property owners, who use the money for property taxes.

Developers impact fees are clearly insufficient in MoCo.

The problem is developers fund county councilmembers campaigns and in turn, they give them exemption from these fees. It's a cozy arrangement.

Developers are going to fund city council member's campaign and they will give exception for development. This is old story and nothing going to change.

People arguing about is wasting time. RM is over crowded. RM will become more overcrowded with help of city leaders working with developers. These idiots gave tax payers moeny to run Dawson, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It costs money to run and staff a school not just to build it. Since property taxes would likely be lower for condos, that burden would fall more heavily on the existing single family homeowners.

In places like New England they fund schools by having very high property taxes, this ironically also keeps real estate values lower and more stable, and prevents overdevelopment, but with the loss of the SALT deduction that's not likely to be popular in MoCo.

IMHO you are foolish to give away top tier school district slots to developers who will eagerly use it as a selling point/higher price justification but who will then not be on the hook to help pay for the schools. You have effectively just done a wealth transfer to the developer at the expense of either school quality or existing homeowners.

Developers pay impact fees. And property owners pay property taxes. And renters pay rent to property owners, who use the money for property taxes.

Developers impact fees are clearly insufficient in MoCo.

The problem is developers fund county councilmembers campaigns and in turn, they give them exemption from these fees. It's a cozy arrangement.

What exemptions, specifically, are you referring to? How and where are developers exempt from impact fees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If we want to penalize people for bringing in new children for the schools then it makes perfect sense to race homebuyers and sellers of existing properties. Why do you disagree? Because it possibly impact you at some point.

Why would we want to do that? If we didn't want children in schools, we could convert the whole county to 55+ housing. But I don't think that's a good idea in the long run.

I support impact fees as a funding source for the MCPS capital budget. I support recordation taxes as a funding source for the MCPS capital budget. I do not support putting the full burden of the MCPS capital budget on people who buy/sell property. School funding benefits society at large, and the costs should be borne by society at large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It costs money to run and staff a school not just to build it. Since property taxes would likely be lower for condos, that burden would fall more heavily on the existing single family homeowners.

In places like New England they fund schools by having very high property taxes, this ironically also keeps real estate values lower and more stable, and prevents overdevelopment, but with the loss of the SALT deduction that's not likely to be popular in MoCo.

IMHO you are foolish to give away top tier school district slots to developers who will eagerly use it as a selling point/higher price justification but who will then not be on the hook to help pay for the schools. You have effectively just done a wealth transfer to the developer at the expense of either school quality or existing homeowners.

Developers pay impact fees. And property owners pay property taxes. And renters pay rent to property owners, who use the money for property taxes.

Developers impact fees are clearly insufficient in MoCo.

The problem is developers fund county councilmembers campaigns and in turn, they give them exemption from these fees. It's a cozy arrangement.

What exemptions, specifically, are you referring to? How and where are developers exempt from impact fees?

There's this amazing thing called Google. All you need to do is type in search terms and it's amazing the things it turns up. For example, there was a discussion of this in the news not long ago.

https://wamu.org/story/18/10/31/in-the-race-for-montgomery-county-executive-candidates-are-divided-on-development/

I remember reading about this going in SS and Bethesda in the past. These giveaways are really not uncommon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There's this amazing thing called Google. All you need to do is type in search terms and it's amazing the things it turns up. For example, there was a discussion of this in the news not long ago.

https://wamu.org/story/18/10/31/in-the-race-for-montgomery-county-executive-candidates-are-divided-on-development/

I remember reading about this going in SS and Bethesda in the past. These giveaways are really not uncommon.

In the bill referred to in your link, developers who include at least 25% MPDUs in their projects (double the required percentage at the time) are exempt from impact fees. So developers have to figure out whether it's better for them, financially, to build more money-losing MPDUs or to pay the impact fees. How is this a giveaway to developers? Also, what alternative incentives would you propose for increasing the number of MPDUs, or do you think that affordable housing is not an issue?

Also, the issue here is the City of Rockville, which has its own planning and taxing authority. The bill does not apply to developments in the City of Rockville.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People want to live in Rockville. That's a fact. Schools are overcrowded. That's also a fact.
It's a bad idea to stop people from coming to Rockville. The evident solution is to build a new school and have the builders pay for it.
Problem solved.

What that really means is: have the new residents pay for the new school. The builders pass the costs on to the new residents - or, if that's not economically feasible, the new units don't get built.

Why should the new residents pay for the new school, when their housing is contributing to only a small fraction of the students at the school?

Theoretically this makes all housing costs go up, which means all buyers pay

Why would it make all housing costs go up? Also, if so, not all buyers would pay equally. And really, the last thing we need is policies that *increase* housing costs.

It’s pretty obvious how that works. If the price of new housing goes up, the demand for older housing would go up as well, which increases it’s price

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It costs money to run and staff a school not just to build it. Since property taxes would likely be lower for condos, that burden would fall more heavily on the existing single family homeowners.

In places like New England they fund schools by having very high property taxes, this ironically also keeps real estate values lower and more stable, and prevents overdevelopment, but with the loss of the SALT deduction that's not likely to be popular in MoCo.

IMHO you are foolish to give away top tier school district slots to developers who will eagerly use it as a selling point/higher price justification but who will then not be on the hook to help pay for the schools. You have effectively just done a wealth transfer to the developer at the expense of either school quality or existing homeowners.

+1