Letter: Impact fees unlikely to solve growth woes

Thursday, March 23, 2006 | 7:22 a.m.

Regarding the Sun's March 14 story, "Growth: Who should pay?":

Local government bureaucrats are suddenly looking for alternatives to property tax financing of builders' developments.

New funding can't be avoided due to demands placed upon the community (and state) for necessary streets, schools, parks and other infrastructure exceeding existing capabilities.

Problem examples abound. "Median" homes are becoming abundant but "affordable" housing is approaching extinction. Demands for police and fire protection have outgrown recruit training, even with available special sales tax money. Overloaded schools seem incapable of providing education to acceptable levels. Our ship of the desert (water district) has invoked water days and utility rates are soaring. Commuters and development residents traveling State Route 160 are being slaughtered while design of traffic controls requires two years' lead time. The list continues on ...

Impact fees would seem to be a workable diversion around both tax constraint initiatives being circulated for signatures. However, campaign treasuries overflowing with developers' donations would seem to constrain the elected politicians' acceptance of this working device - the impact fee - and, by extension, the politicians' coercion of the appointed bureaucrats. Watch for the inevitable evasive tactics.

Richard E. Law, Las Vegas