Discussion about this post

User's avatar
PJC's avatar

A small example from the US. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/redwood-city-keeps-park-fees-for-market-rate-developers/article_6552a948-38d7-11ef-88ec-73d96066f7d6.html#tncms-source=login

Here, Redwood City was considering reducing park impact fees for housing projects already in the pipeline. Thankfully they did not.

I shared with council an article from the same local paper describing that in a nearby town, nine approved projects, including housing projects, were on hold waiting for lower interest rates and higher rents.

Basically the points you make here. Some how I think the meme "pushing a string" applies here. This string needs to be pulled.

One neat and subtle point you make, that I had not considered, is that one cannot believe reduced fees would both expedite construction AND reduce rents. If fee reductions lowered rents, project revenues-less-costs would be unchanged, and time-to-market decisions would be unchanged.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts