Impact fees have long been an unnecessary part of North American cities, often forced upon residents. Thanks to the Court of Queen’s Bench in Winnipeg, the impact fee is now gone. Since it was challenged, discussions have spread across many cities where the fee had been imposed.
Cities of all sizes throughout North America charged impact fees to fund utilities such as parks, roads, and schools. A few years ago, Winnipeg was a prime example of this practice.
Impact fees may be useful in exurbs, where growing populations need extra infrastructure. However, they are not suitable in metropolitan centers, where communities are already welcoming and established. In these areas, the fee becomes a burden disguised as urban development.
Buildings Don’t Need Further Improvements
When builders ask for the impact fee because they have to build a new building then it doesn’t make any sense. You build buildings because people pay to live inside them. What else would be interesting to know is the fact that building new doesn’t need to create new public service in the city as well. Instead of imposing the new impact fee, why not talk to the community members and ask them and take their opinion regarding if they want to improve the existing services by paying for the amenities and services they are using and imposing a tax on home buildings just like any other business which is a sane option for any local city govt.
Why someone else should pay?
Impact fee to build new amenities doesn’t make sense in many ways. We all know the financial situation that the middle class and working class are facing. The utility bills are increasing and have become more regressive in the last few years. Rising property taxes can put the homeowners and people with fixed income in the red zone. Meanwhile, several municipal budgets are already on the short side. Combining all of them, these factors make impact fees attractive for political parties to support it. However, the solution may lie in cities funding the infrastructure instead of imposing more taxes and impact fees as utility charges and spread the burden equally across the resident on the entire city.
Building New Homes Should Be Toxic
“Toxic” here does not mean environmental harm. It refers to the message sent when impact fees are charged to home builders. Such fees suggest that building new homes to ease the housing crisis is a harmful activity. This framing can make the effort appear negative or “toxic.”
In reality, the process is simple. Builders construct new homes, and buyers purchase them if needed. There should be no room for an impact fee in this exchange.
