Supreme Court rules local governments must change impact fee assessment for housing projects
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 เม.ย. 2024
- John Ramos reports on a Supreme Court ruling that could have a big impact on the housing crisis in California.
Website: kpix.com/
TH-cam: / cbssanfrancisco
Facebook: / cbssanfrancisco
Instagram: / kpixtv
Twitter: / kpixtv
![🔴 [TRỰC TIẾP] Tứ Xuyên (Trung Quốc) VS U20 Thái Lan | Cúp VTV9 - Bình Điền 2024 | JET STUDIO](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bguJ41PcW0c/mqdefault.jpg)
![🔴 [TRỰC TIẾP] U20 Thái Lan VS LPBank Ninh Bình | Cúp VTV9 - Bình Điền 2024 | JET STUDIO](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3wRNdAy3DXs/mqdefault.jpg)
sounds like extortion, pay me this amount so you can build here
It is extortion. They force you to "donate" to schools in order to get building permits. They force you to upgrade your driveway to slightly change the slope if you add a little room to your house. It's all corrupt and all a grift.
Watch ,Back to school w Rodney Dangerfield
Sounds like a Red State where they like to boast how low their taxes are, cause they don't care about infrastructure, even plowing roads in winter, every years out West stories of people going down roads that gov't hasn't the money to plow, getting stuck, dying. Gov't in Red States won't even pay for a chain and lock to block the road off, of course, they can't, as people own land there, and that would be depriving them of use of their land. Funny how not maintaining the road seems NOT to count as blocking access to land. Someone should sue, hint hint lawyers out there.
That has always been the case since they started with 'Permits'. Think about it:
Me: "Can I build a deck on my house?"
Govt: "No it's illegal".
Me: "Okay what if I give you some money, then can I do something illegal like put a deck on my house?"
Govt: "No that is a bribe."
Me: "What is we make everyone do it?"
Govt:"We'll call them Permits!"
And thus legalized bribery was born.
A lot of these city bureaucrats just see people who do the actual work as ATMs.
And like their power to do whatever they want
exact opposite here.... this is used to keep people OUT of neighborhoods, they are literally saying we DON'T want your money so we are going to price you out". maybe you should actually think about the situation before you pop off with some hate fueled nonsense?
@@scottduke2809They want to keep the home price high by limiting the supply of home. That is why home prices are so high in California.
@@scottduke2809 The government literally took over a mobile home park, pushed those people out, build some apartment building subsidized with your tax dollars and then made that apartment building too expensive for anyone to live in.
My experience is that city and town regulation personell see any poor citizen who is unlucky enough to have to have to come into their empires for building permits, permissions, approvals, as cash cows, to squeese for everything they can.
Some cities don’t want affordable housing at all as residents like their home values going up and they like being exclusive. Also local landlords like prop values going up so they can charge higher rents. Glad to see this case and also the Builder’s Remedy by the state finally force cities to allow for more housing to be built
So who pays for the infrastructure? Taxpayers? Cool by me but who pays the taxes. You can bet the profits of that nursing home goes to a national chain that ensures they don't pay no stinking taxes anywhere, as do their billionaire owners.
NO Taxation without representation! 🎉
No wonder there are so many homeless people in Cali. The bureaucrats are making it impossible to build with their “impact fees”. All they do is create obstacles to affordable housing.
That's a laugh. No "affordable housing" was ever being built.
@@Here4TheHeckOfIt if they build more luxury condos older buildings will become cheaper. All housing creates affordable housing.
It’s worse than that. Zoning, parking requirements, minimum lot sizes, set backs, height restrictions, excessive building codes, and tons of money into highways to (destroy poor neighborhoods).
As a leftist I mostly agree. Just remember that other states also bus their homeless here and we have better resources, climate, and services for the homeless overall so of course our homeless numbers are high.
But still, we need to incentivize housing to be built. I'd rather it be public housing but as long as the private sector is building we should stop getting in the way.
@seancutt793 😂😂😂😂better service? For the homeless? You do know that we spent 24 billion with a B, on homeless the number doubled. How is that better? Better at wasting money yes, treating the issues, obviously not
the fact that the state doesn't need to spend the money for that area is what gets me. this fact makes the impact assessment nothing more than a general tax. impact fees should only be earmarked for the specific zip code that it was collected from.
I think he meant the city. The city has neighborhoods. And yes sometimes your taxes are spend fixing something on the other side of the city, just like when someone else’s taxes are spend funding your side of the police department or fire station.
How is this news to you?
@@denislara4343 Ok, Einstein. What you describe is a general tax. We are talking about impact tax. It’s supposed to be for stuff like new sidewalks, roads, traffic lights, traffic signs, more city services as a result of building new housing.
The problem here is that when cities levy impact tax, they don’t actually allocate that money to those things above. It goes to a general fund that can be used anyway they want. This in of itself makes it a general tax and not an impact tax. Impact tax should be used specifically for the impacts listed. Don’t call it an impact tax if it is not one.
Just think, if there was a proposition to increase your sales tax by 0.5% for schools and you find out it’s not actually used for schools.
They granted permission to sue, and not much more.
We REALLY need to Start looking at how Other Countries Manage to house all their People .... I see a day when RVs line all the streets in 30 years if we don’t
I'm sure allowing corporate entities to buy all of the starter homes is not how comparable countries deal with housing.
@@Here4TheHeckOfIt Don’t forget air B&B ~ back in the Day people but a ( 1\4 Cape ) or a honeymoon Cottege ~ when they had more money they added on for a 1\2 Cape than a whole one...
@@Here4TheHeckOfIt no they just make it easier to build. Don't create bs rules with the explicit purpose of stoping the construction of houses
Name a country that does manage to house all its people.
@@elifuentes7070 Japan
City requirements for development are ridiculous. More restrictions mean higher costs.
They embezzle the funds!
Thank god the supreme court is getting involved in the housing crisis. It’s about time
ikr
City planners are doing a grave disservice to taxpayers if they don’t work harder and more creatively with developers to lower the actual environmental, social, and financial impact of new development through sustainable design, engineering, and construction techniques, rather than wasting all their energy in fighting over impact fees. We are in a race against time to reach environmental sustainability, and we have a growing wealth divide that is only going to breed more social unrest and violence if not directly addressed through the availability of high-quality, low-cost housing and the other city services needed to give people a real shot at social mobility. There are pricing strategies, like SROI, that developers and city officials can use to make sure the money is spent on solutions that grow the pie rather than shrink it. The time is now for both sides to break out of their habitual patterns, which only end up harming everybody-most especially, future generations, who will otherwise bear the brunt of our laziness and self-serving risk avoidance.
"Sustainable" is propaganda with no meaning.
Maybe the impact fees should go the the area that's it building in instead of other agencies or parts of the state. Maybe use the fund to expand local school facilities or improve road infrastructure to accommodate the increased traffic. Its common sense but you vote for them and don't really care, and that's why i live in Nevada.
When many companies LEAVE California because of huge pay-offs and Bribes demanded and massive costs and time, they go to other states and instead of 25 years, they build what they need inside of 2 years. And with less minimum wage laws, you can pay workers less and they can afford to pay the lesser costs of living in the new areas.
Local Texas govts have impact fees too.
What’s your point?
seems like the supreme court spends a lot of time fixing Calif lower court rulings. No surprise.
Florida is turning the same
further delays in construction as fees will be battled in the court before construction starts
So…..SCOTUS is removing impact fees for wealthy developers….BUT are skeptical on removing citation for being homeless….
They aren’t using these fees to take care of the streets !! So maybe they taking it for themselves
OH YOU KNOW IT
@@tomoconnor7528 that's why SCOTUS said enough is enough
This is one of the many problems we have in CA. The gatekeepers over decades just simply get in the way of housing production. Had the government (Fed/state/city) never got involved in housing, we would never have shortages like the enormous one we have now.
Why not have any city reps on here to discuss?
Housing prices will go way down. The agencies fees are through the roof.
Those impact fees are a money grab from the cities.
How can you build affordable housing if municipalities tack on huge costs to housing units 🙄
Crazy.
Government greed is completely out of control!
Local governments are having difficulty requiting personnel to fill vacancies due in part to high housing costs that the local governments are causing. So what's their answer? Affordable housing fees. LOL
Why in the world does it take eight years to study something like this? That’s just legally kicking the can down the road. It’s ridiculous.
Just one example of how governments impact housing: impact fees, code impacts all these raises housing costs
Honestly, I suspect that if they truly calculate the impact, including traffic mitigation, water treatment and power, the fees will go UP in many densely populated areas of the Bay Area.
Sue for retroactive damages
Thank god ...... Make housing cheap again
I can't believe the Supreme Court is still ruling in favor of the public or not soo corrupt
Context? This report doesn't explain what these fees are intended to do or how proposed change will impact the programs these fees currently help to fund.
A ruling that actually helps citizens?…. Are the SCOUTS high?
Impact fees minus property tax fees.
Fantastic ruling by the Supreme Court
If someone owns the land and it does not impact the surroundings or nature significantly or at all, people should be able to do what they want with their own land.
Heard of the same BS in Superior Wisconsin
When I lived in the Bay area and read a little history, there was an army engineer corps study back in the forties that said it could hold 10 million. I would think by now I would have 15 million not for 4.
It's sad that families have deteriorated to the point that seniors are forced to live in confined quarters with other sick, dying people. Even if the developers have good intentions, these facilities are not a good solution, as much history has shown.
Impact fees are a huge scam. Jacking up costs to the point of making so called low cost housing, impossible. It’s just rich person housing at this point as no one else can afford anything.
This assessment should not be repealed no matter what the cost is to the developer or the new home because the tiger stripe streets suck, and they create potholes, and they’re disastrous to the neighbors.
Limiting mandatory parking minimums would be a better reform.
No, that is money that will be going into the developer's pockets.
Looting fees have to be actual impact fees.
About time!
Many times ,local bureaucrats are in the pocket of other developers and real estate companies
Local government has grown more out of control than federal and state.
Tax is usually paid for such public improvements!
Impact fees must be paid but should benefit the local community it impacts and not the other side of town away from the constructions. Developers don’t want anything that impacts their profits. Affordable generally means cheaper housing. Developers want all available land to be developed and do not care about the impact to a community. Government should not get the fees directly and give developers extra incentives and cuts to develop more. Development makes taxes go up because nothing accounts for the excessive traffic increase, schooling requirements, congestion of movement for everyone. Let them go to Nevada, Arazona, or other states but don’t overbuild a community then leave them to sustain the new building. The taxes on the new units never covers the additional taxes on the whole community.
Good. That’s not fine. Nothing about that was ok.
“Crisis?” Tone it down a knotch.
Its extortion. They assume no liability in anything.
but the slush funds? Who will scrape the cream off the top?
2:14 I’ve seen a lot of disrespectful uses of our Flag but that takes the cake.
an excellent decision, now what about the 'taking' of land to be used for a jurisdiction wish list, meaning X amount of land to be used for, say, green space? That decision of that green space 'must' be the province of the developer -- not a leftist land use mandate...
NIMB’s have abused this process for decades to block development.
Cities will just move fees elsewhere.
How did we give cities this power; I know, "Health and Safety" BS.
Efren Carrillo, isn't this the same guy who several years ago was outside his neighbor's house in his underwear with beer trying to persuade her to get with him? Did she win her lawsuit?
Why build in Cali. Florida needs houses
Wtf, youre bringing in people to potentially help the community. People would much rather buy locally than drive 20-30 min for necessities. Also, you're usually building your own infrastructure that ties into the city. Wow
is this a THE supreme court or a state supreme court ruling?
They said US Supreme Court, that's the big one.
Now Builders can charged the Cities "Impact fees" for housing the homeless.
The repeal of this assessment is a disaster because I live in a state that doesn’t have this and every new house has to cut up our street to put the pipes in so all of my streets look like tiger stripes because they don’t have to repave the road after they have to cut it up to run the new lines.
Yeah people should be homeless instead
This was a good ruling
If developers don't pay......and cart their profits off to their banks..... property tax payers will pay.....and property owners don't have the bank accounts developers have. Pay your fair share instead of having property owners pay. These property taxes are getting ridiculous.
Just imagine if say gov'ts run their biz by TAXING those with money in the community to cover common costs. Then you could build anyplace fee free. Imagine the boost in construction. Imagine the rich people Suing the gov't for raising taxes on them to pay for roads to service old age homes where their ex workers live, 4 to a room, each with 3 feet of closet space and bureau for their clothes and personal effects, for the privilege of eating gov't surplus food 3 x a day
This sounds like it will destroy suburbia. good.
Mello-Roos
lol the developer says this helps working class people, but in reality he builds upscale luxury housing for the wealthy,
A fee is used Only to cover actual costs. A Tax is what this really was. An unconstitutional tax because they called it a fee.
Price gouging, land banking & greedy, corrupt property developers receiving billions in tax cuts & rate payer incentives are causing thw Global Housing shortage Crisis
Build more apartments
We tried to build a 600 unit if Fresno. The city wanted us to build and pay for an elementary and middle school along with funding them for the 1st 5 years. The company closed its doors to California.
Needs to a long episode on this, too complicated for a minute
Love seeing Generation Housing on here KPIX :) Fight these run-away fees!
Obama era poster on the wall, just cringe.
Any local , state and federal employees are a waste of tax money. Lazy.
And that includes things like fire and police?
Booooo!
I love how they continue to call it a “housing crisis” instead of a “there are too many people on this planet, stop having kids” crisis.
Tyrannical governments will be dealt with using the 2A. The day is drawing nearer 😢, government should be for the people not against 😊
I sympathize with the developer but as someone who is looking for a condo like this, I would pass on this development because there is too much concrete too little greenery and is car centric and not safe for pedestrians .
Only retirees have the best rates
NIMBY homeowners should be sued. Local planning boards are filled with Karen's who act arbitrarily and capriciously based on their subjective feelings about what their local communities should restrict.
But how will we afford the benefits package for the homeless without these fees
SC getting rid of CA socialism... one issue at a time, good
This would be a wonderful opportunity to pause for a moment and give thanks for the great contributions all of my BRUTHAS/SISTAS in the melanin community that have dedicated their lives to benefit our society. Their peaceful NON-VIOLENT, generous nature and articulate speaking skills make them ideal neighbors, lending testimony to their exceptional family values and parenting skills unrivaled by any other culture. Their child-rearing practices and skills mixed with their unparalleled work ethic are second to none. Their rational and logical thought toward circumstances coupled with their innate capability to de-escalate situations to be envied and coveted. Their commitment to academic excellence enriches our schools and serves our community as an example to all.
THIS IS CALLED EXCLUSIONARY ZONING. LOOK IT UP !!! DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE POOR VS THE RICH
California needs to start charging at least 6 thousand dollars a month for a one bedroom apartment everywhere. It's only fair. And for a 2 bedroom apartment: 11 thousand dollars a month. That seems fair and you get a microwave with a tiny balcony.😆
How come all that stuff isn't already figured out by the city.?
I mean.. it's obviously been surveyed. But they don't know any other details about the land..?
They should know every environmental detail about it.
What's the disgusting display of 2016 Islamic propaganda displayed proudly for?
CA doesn't care. They'll write their own laws. Just look at what they are doing to our 2nd amendment. All fun and games until it affects you.
Imagine that, another tax by the Democrat run States and Cities.