Sample Letter re: Costs of Growth

Sample letter to the editor/planning commission/etc. concerning the costs of growth

Conventional wisdom would have us believe that residential development can help alleviate municipal budget problems.  I think that this conventional wisdom is incorrect.  Research shows that residential development usually aggravates city budget problems.  Typically the system development charges (SDCs) collected from the developer and the taxes collected from the new residents don't even come close to offsetting the cost of the new services that such development requires.  Trying to build your way out of declining budgets is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Research done in 1997 by the city of Redmond, Washington, reveals that new residential housing cost between 30-55 percent more than it added to city coffers in SDCs and tax revenue.  The American Farmland Trust (AFT) conducted surveys in 12 U.S. communities and found in each case that residential development constituted a net fiscal drain.  In the words of one of the AFT reports, "The results of this analysis show that over a wide range of densities the ongoing public costs of new residential development will exceed the revenues from such development." 

In a 1995 study for the Oregon Department of Economic Development, Portland State University economist Anthony Rufolo writes, "Increasing development that leads to increasing population creates a demand for public services and infrastructure that is likely to offset any tax revenues gains."

In his 2002 report "Assessment of Statewide Growth Subsidies in Oregon," author Eben Fodor determined that the average new house in Oregon costs taxpayers $34,955 in infrastructure costs, which results in a net loss to taxpayers of $27,204 per new house once average SDCs are subtracted.

Other studies around the country also indicate that residential development either leads to higher taxes or reduced public services or, in many cases, both.  The financial costs of growth alone seem reason enough for members of this community have a strong argument in favor of slowing and even halting growth, and the right to do so. 

Added to this is the fact that many people do not want to see their community grow any larger.  A 1999 poll conducted by the University of Oregon Survey Research Laboratory found that 95 percent of Oregonians say Oregon's current population is just right or too big already.  They have born painful witness to increasing traffic congestion, school overcrowding, declining government service levels, crumbling roads and bridges and higher taxes.

It's time to place to the option of not growing on the list of alternatives for Oregon communities.