NewspaperTree.com Blog

El Paso-centric info and commentary from the Center of North America

NPT City: Greater Chamber resolutions: No on impact fees, yes on PSB control of stormwater

psb-el-pasoThe Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce approved two resolutions on major issues facing the community. In regards to impact fees, the chamber adopted a flat “no.” As for the issue of the stormwater utility and the PSB management of it, the resolution was a little more nuanced — while it supports the PSB maintaining control, it also calls for “a major adjustment to the credits given for on-site ponding using a scientific basis for calculation” and asks that “in light of present economic conditions, the El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board consider extending the schedule of the Capital Improvements Plan and reduce rates accordingly.”

resolution-reaffirming-support-for-psb-and-stormwater

impact-fee-resolution

Advertisements

Written by newspapertreeelpaso

March 25, 2009 at 10:11 am

Posted in Uncategorized

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It is a shame that the Chamber of Commerce did not access actual research on the affect of impact fees on the price of new homes. It does not translate into a direct increase in home prices – at least not based upon the research. Part of the effect is on land prices, part on development, and part on new prices. What is critical, however, is that good (and sustainable) development policies which usually include Impact Fees can (i)stimulate more affordable and better development inside the City limits (thereby using existing infrastructure better – – and less costly), (ii)reduce commute/transportation costs (biggest impact on affordability), and (iii)encourage developers creativity to reduce IMPACTS. ALL are of benefit to both present and future residents of El Paso…

    Clue

    March 25, 2009 at 11:32 am

  2. i will never join the chamber again. they wont get my money ever. they are out of touch with businesses. the only business they care about is public service business. the psb, which has ruben guerra on its board along with being on the chamber board. with so many psb people and relatives of psb people on the chamber they should change the name to
    ” the chamber of commerce of the psb in el paso “

    cabron

    March 25, 2009 at 3:31 pm

  3. In response to the comments above, the Chamber spent countless hours research the effects of impact fees on all realms of business, including single family, multi-family and Commercial. It is ignorant to think that a fee will not be passed on to the consumer, and ultimately, for a community that has pledged it’s support to Fort Bliss and the BRAC, it is irresponsible to drive up the costs of development so that developers can not afford to build single or multifamily units that people in this community can afford to live in. Furthermore, any utility industry functions on a pooled basis. The operation and maintenance fees from the newer areas fund line replacements and rehabilitation in older areas. For west side growth, and projected northeast growth, a good portion of the land that they are proposing impact fees on is for land that the PSB sold or proposes to sell. Isn’t the revenue from that land going towards capital improvements? In addition, the majority of the land included in the west and northeast impact fee area is already in the city limits (unlike what was descibed above), and capital improvements WILL STILL BE REQUIRED for development inside city limits. And for the East side annexations, they have been developer initiated annexations which pay annexation fees that go to the PSB to offset capital improvement costs. The phrase “Existing customers should not pay for growth” makes sense, but even if there was no growth, there will still be capital improvements to keep up with new requirements and laws, and to replace aging equipment. The Chamber did not arrive at their impact fee without great discussion and from multiple view points, but ultimately, it was based upon the evaluation of calculations and contribution by multiple experts who chose to recommend actions in the best interest of the community in an effort to promote the continued economic growth of the region.

    better informed

    March 26, 2009 at 11:09 am

  4. The shell game is being used here. Anywhere else in the US, the builders build at their own risk and expense. The pea under the shell is the gimmick sales pitch. We cant build inexpensive houses if we dont get subsidized. Cant afford to buy a house, save your money and rent until then. No one guarranteed me a cheap house.

    Why should the current house owners pick up the tab for someone’s else house and increase or guarranteed the builder a profit. I have to tell my friendly car salesman this one. Have the city subsidize him so he can keep cars affordable, since the car will eventually need repairs, the customer(current car owners)would have to pay anyway.

    I dont care who you consulted, I didnt need a survey or consultant to tell me when I am getting shafted.

    Dont fall for this shell game, they will keep moving the pea so you cant find it.

    Rey

    March 26, 2009 at 4:28 pm

  5. My fellow on Orkut shared this link and I’m not dissapointed at all that I came here.

    Heartburn Home Remedy

    April 15, 2009 at 5:45 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: