| Growth doesn't pay for itself, consultant says |
|
By: MICHELLE WILLARD, Post Content Editor
|
Posted: Friday, February 5, 2010 11:47 am
|
Email Print
|
Residential growth does not pay for itself, a consultant says.
Rutherford County needs a better balance between residential and commercial/industrial growth, the consultant for the county’s Comprehensive Land-use Plan said at a meeting Thursday night.
Parsons Brinkerhoff presented an update to the Rutherford County Comprehensive Land-use Plan Steering Committee this week that outlined the county’s past and future economic development.
“We’re the 13th fastest growing county (of the 300 largest counties) in the United States,” said David Hafley, the Parsons Brinkerhoff’s project director. Rutherford County has a good manufacturing and industrial base, but the explosion in residential growth wasn’t good for the county’s bottom line.
“What are the costs that the county is incurring as a consequence of the growth,” he asked. “Do we have the fiscal resources to support the plan we want to develop?”
MTSU Business and Economic Research Center Director David Penn, another consultant on the project, presented what he sees as three Rutherford Counties: Suburban Rutherford, Industrial Rutherford and Campus Rutherford.
Suburban Rutherford consists of the county’s population that commutes to work out of the county.
“Thousands of county residents commute daily to jobs in other counties, primarily Davidson County,” Penn said, adding the demand for jobs in Davidson County is closely tied to demand for housing in Rutherford County because of the commuting populace.
“Workers choose to commute because of lower housing costs, quality of life considerations and concerns about the quality of public schools,” he said.
And while Rutherford County is attractive to families, those who work out of county cause leakage in sales tax revenue to the counties where they work, Penn said.
That leakage is especially important in light of a Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations report on the cost of land use in Robertson, Blount and Tipton counties.
Hafley said the study showed the fiscal impact of land uses by comparing the revenue generated by residential, commercial/industrial and agricultural uses against the cost of providing services to those uses.
“Even though the counties are different, Robertson is roughly a similar county to Rutherford County,” Hafley said.
In short the study found that for every $1 generated by residential property Robertson County spent $1.15 providing services. Blount spent $1.20 and Tipton spent $1.05.
But for every $1 in rev from commercial and industrial use Robertson County only spent $0.20 providing services. The cost of providing services to agricultural land was even less.
“This is important to the way we think of land use growth in Rutherford County,” Hafley said. “Residential costs more than it produces.”
This means, in the long run, banking on residential development to increase the tax base can have negative consequences for the county’s bottom line. And the county would be better off by encouraging more commercial/industrial growth and preserving open spaces for farming.
Michelle Willard can be contacted at 615-869-0816 or mwillard@murfreesboropost.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
Member Opinions:
By: bota on 2/5/10
Tell this to the Mayor and Council who try sell the idea that growth does pay for itself.
By: Macgyver on 2/5/10
I don't know what this study cost but this is very enlighting and worth ever penny. I hope the M'boro Council reads this and rethinks their policy of "annexation to increase revenues". Impact taxes are a good way to fix this problem. Make the new houses pay for themselves and not the rest of us.
By: Duvics on 2/5/10
This is a COUNTY issue, not a CITY one.
By: tammyo2002 on 2/5/10
I was born in M'boro and have lived here most of my life...I am a web developer and would LOVE LOVE LOVE to work in the Boro too...we have a good university...we need some good white-collar enterprise development...whether it is the City or the County government, let's promote our excellent workforce that would love to get off I-24!
By: Macgyver on 2/5/10
Duvics, please tell me you know that Murfreesboro is in the county of Rutherford? As the largest city in the county, it has a direct effect on the whole county. Our City Council wouldn't commission this report because they know what "annexation to increase revenues" does to the city as a whole. Annex more land to build more houses helps their day-jobs out but it doesn't help us out.
By: truthandjustice1 on 2/5/10
This is an issue for the County and the all the Cities, they must come together and form a plan and will take this entire County into the future.... maybe, just maybe even consider that evil thought of...Oh My God NO...METRO.
By: Curious on 2/5/10
The idea of Impact Fees on new residential construction was killed by the State Legislature in 2006 when they enacted the County Powers Relief Act. All you've got to do is check who financed their reelection campaigns to figure out why. The same goes for the City of Murfreesboro council and their annexation and rezoning policies. There is an election for city council and Mayor coming up in April. If you vote for only one candidate for council (instead of three) and that candidate is a non incumbent, there is a good chance that we can get a new face on the council. Then do the same thing in 2 years when another three positions come up for a vote. The trick is for everyone who is dissatisfied with the status quo to vote for the same non-incumbant. Who shall it be?
By: publius on 2/5/10
Very interesting I work in Nashville I wish I had an opportunity to work here. I hate the commute. Maybe this report with push the county and cities to work together.
By: Curious on 2/5/10
Though the cities have been identified and contacted as "stakeholders" in this process, the Comprehensive Plan is a planning process for the County. The cities are not an active participant, but hopefully they will value the results as being positive for all citizens. The video of Thursday's meeting (about which this article is written) is on the Rutherford County YouTube site: http://www.youtube.com/user/RutherfordGovernment. Fascinating stuff that will involve more public participation ... for those who truly care about the future of the county.
By: TimPowers on 2/6/10
People who benefit from unpaid, unplanned growth like developers, realtors, bankers, outside contractors, principals, and politicians will STILL deny that Growth does NOT pay for itself. It is and always will be about self-interests. Too bad more people don't care about community - and no I am not a socialist.
By: borowatcher on 2/6/10
The "profitable" portion of the economy (commercial) would not exist if it were not for the residential segment. You can't seperate them. Also, the numbers presented were from Robertson County, a more rural county. It doesn't even compare to Rutherford County. What do they have that compares to our 4 cities? Adams, Springfield, Coopertown, and White House. No comparison. They have no commercial areas like Smyrna and Murfreesboro. BTW, county residents say they don't need the cities. Well, where do they get their clothes, groceries, appliances, etc... Murfreesboro and Smyrna taxpayers thank you. We do not exist seperate from one another. County residents contribute to city taxes and city to county. Residential contributes to commercial and commercial draws residential.
By: greaterhands on 2/6/10
It is about time someone told the elected idiots in this city and county. They think like Obama that if you spend it extra money will come back to you. Some of our council and comissioners think the more they spend of our money the better things wil get. I urge voters to vote them out of office.
By: fred129 on 2/6/10
#1 The Post - the article should be titled Residential Growth; without a doubt commercial, office, industrial growth does pay for itself, as does multi-family that is taxed as commercial; #2 Residential growth depends on what type as per the aforementioned multi-family or retirement communities where we do not have to educate children; #3 the only means the county has to eliminate this "growth loss" is to dramatically down-zone thousands of acres of land, and if and/or when the property owners understand what will happen to their propery value, the commissioners phones will not stop ringing; #4 why, are we spending several thousand dollars to do this worthy exercise when we have a planning, engineering, codes and "legal" staff drawing several thousand dollars annually? This could have been done "in-house"; & #5 How do you have this process be effective with the municipalities being active participants?
By: TimPowers on 2/6/10
Residential growth has to be planned. I agree with fred129, commercial/manufacturing is a plus and gives jobs/tax revenue. BUT, it is the building of subdivisions and then demanding/getting existing taxpayers to pay for the infrastructure(schools, roads, protections) that is the problem. Borowatcher, if residential paid for itself, then why is county borrowing $500 million to pay for new schools?
By: ItsGood on 2/8/10
I wish the growth would stop. I hope all the restaurant chains quit coming and those here fail. There is no need for growth. Before we had McDonald's, Dairy Queen, Shoney's and the Parthenon - now too many restaurants. Shopping is a nightmare as I prefer the drive to Hickory Hollow as they had plenty of parking. The university has gotten to big as I remember when I could pull up and park in front of my class building. There was a small football stadium and the Murphy Center hosted Elvis, Bob Hope, and other entertainment. Lets go back to the old days and get the Yankees out of town.
Login and voice your opinion!
|