02-04-2010, 02:13 PM
You did it again.
Impact fees are a way for local government to obtain funding to address additional services directly proportionate to the project. It’s basically a pay as you incur fee versus government having to maintain an investment or bond capacity to cover capital cost. If there are no impact fees, government will need to have a sufficient reserve to cover capital cost until multi-year property tax revenue comes in to cover the debt.
But you’re saying this proposal is bad which means the need for investment reserves is the alternative, but you’re saying that investment reserves are wrong, so impact fees are needed, but if you’re against impact fees you must be for reserve investments, but since you’re against reserve investments, that means you’re in favor of impact fees, But you’re against impact fees which means you’re really for reserve investments, or is it you’re against reserve investments and in favor of impact fees, or…………. What is it you are in favor of and what is it you’re against?
Impact fees are a way for local government to obtain funding to address additional services directly proportionate to the project. It’s basically a pay as you incur fee versus government having to maintain an investment or bond capacity to cover capital cost. If there are no impact fees, government will need to have a sufficient reserve to cover capital cost until multi-year property tax revenue comes in to cover the debt.
But you’re saying this proposal is bad which means the need for investment reserves is the alternative, but you’re saying that investment reserves are wrong, so impact fees are needed, but if you’re against impact fees you must be for reserve investments, but since you’re against reserve investments, that means you’re in favor of impact fees, But you’re against impact fees which means you’re really for reserve investments, or is it you’re against reserve investments and in favor of impact fees, or…………. What is it you are in favor of and what is it you’re against?