2019-06-02 18:13:57.444151+02 by Dan Lyke 2 comments
Sigh. It's only an "investment" if it'll actually pay off. This is a flat out expense, with no connected revenue stream and no way for the city to actually recoup from the value that's created (that's gonna go towards a few land owners, at the expense of a hell of a lot more vehicle miles traveled).
Petaluma invests in crosstown roads, particularly the Ranier and Caulfield connectors
[ related topics: Interactive Drama Current Events Economics Real Estate ]
comments in descending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2019-06-04 00:32:00.590566+02 by: Dan Lyke
Yeah, in California with Prop 13 in place it's not clear that rising property values results in rising property tax revenues.
Whether that rise would be enough to cover the additional infrastructure is an additional question, but the answer appears to be no.
#Comment Re: made: 2019-06-02 19:17:32.50648+02 by: TheSHAD0W
Rising property values results in rising property tax revenues. Whether it'll make up for the expense of adding roads is the question.
*sigh* In this day and age where the government is the be-all and end-all, arguing over where taxes should be spent will never end.
We will not edit your comments. However, we may delete your comments, or cause them to be hidden behind another link, if we feel they detract from the conversation. Commercial plugs are fine, if they are relevant to the conversation, and if you don't try to pretend to be a consumer. Annoying endorsements will be deleted if you're lucky, if you're not a whole bunch of people smarter and more articulate than you will ridicule you, and we will leave such ridicule in place.
Flutterby™ is a trademark claimed by
Dan Lyke for the web publications at www.flutterby.com and www.flutterby.net.