Posts: 447
Threads: 36
Joined: Sep 2009
What is the purpose of government again? its it something about protecting our individual rights?... Ill leave you to conclude.
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/arti...ocal06.txt
"Hoffmann emphasized that impact fees for individual property owners seeking a building permit would be half or less than the $12,000 per lot currently assessed developers. In addition, he said, there would be an option for property owners under a certain income level to put the fee in abeyance until the property is sold"
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
You read an article in the local paper. Good. Do you have anything to add?
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
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?
Posts: 1,839
Threads: 48
Joined: May 2007
Ah yes, Double the fees for the EVIL DEVELOPERS! The entrepenuers who risk their own money to provide jobs to build EVIL HOUSES! THEY should pay TRIPLE. Those EVIL DEVELOPERS!!!
Posts: 2,314
Threads: 59
Joined: Jun 2003
No wonder Hawaii is the most anti-business state in the USA
][
][
]
Aloha,
John S. Rabi, GM,PB,ABR,CRB,CM,FHS
808.327.3185
johnrabi@johnrabi.com
http://www.JohnRabi.com
Typically Tropical Properties
"The Next Level of Service!"
Posts: 447
Threads: 36
Joined: Sep 2009
I am against government. But seems like I can't opt out of their service plans or oversight.
Posts: 447
Threads: 36
Joined: Sep 2009
Hawaii is anti business because it is big government and regulation from top to bottom. It's actually pro certain types of business. If you are the power company you are doing fine, if you are a large military contractor, the state loves you, if you are a monopoly shipping company you win.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Interesting comments.
Maybe someone can tell me why they are against Impact Fees.
This is my reasons why I would support Impact Fees over the current system:
1. It works all over the US. More and more communities are going to Impact Fees because it's fair. Impact fees are a known variable from the start in a project versus potential unknown tax increases over many years. Impact fees, because of that return to the community impacted, does not have the constitutional issues Hawaii County is facing with their other methods.
2. It returns the money used to address the impact a project has on the community right back to that community. So if a project in Puna caused increase roads, required increase police and fire presence, or required capital improvements to water systems to meet the demands of that project, the fees paid goes for that purpose right in the community. Currently, funds collected to deal with infrastructure issues in Puna, can be spend on beautification projects in Kona. Increase police needs in Puna may not occur because the funds are used to provide holiday decorations in Hilo.
3. The current system is a pledge to pay, but only a small percentage is ever paid. The rest goes uncollected forcing the individual taxpayers to make up any shortfall or the improvements never happen due to lack of funds.
4. Every project has an impact. The degree of that impact establishes the amount of the Impact Fee. Individual residential construction in existing areas has a very small impact versus a larger scale residential project. Each pays their proportionate burden on the community. You're paying for it now through debt services. Under Impact Fees, the cost to improve services is being paid during the development phase of a project so there is no long drawn out multi-decade debt service to cover capital cost. Projects can start and be completed as the increase service is needed instead of having to wait until there is enough extra funds to cover the initial cost and on going debt service to pay the total cost.
But, it seems there are some who think it's bad, and I would be interested in hearing your reasoning.
And, I would really love to hear the views of our potential Council candidates.
Posts: 447
Threads: 36
Joined: Sep 2009
Bob Orts:
impact fees lack equal protection under the law, plain and simple. If you can show me how you can implement an impact fee and still provide equality under the law, i will consider changing my position. I assure you for a FACT that it is 100% impossible to have the implementation of this type of free and still provide for equal protection. This point may not be skipped either, as it is included in 2 "constitutions" that supposedly apply to me.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
I'm lost, how does Impact Fees lack equal protection? It applies specifically to the "Impact" of a project on the delivery of services to that community. Impact Fees are not some general style tax, it has to be collected based on actual projected impact cost and can only be used on that projected impact.
