Property Rights in Champaign County

While landlords who accept Section 8 payments tend to get top dollar (our dollars remember) for their properties, they kind of deserve it since having section 8 tenants almost guarantees increased maintenance costs.

You also tend to alienate your neighbors.

Remember a while back when we had that big conversation about doing things to make housing more affordable? Well, mandatory land donation is not one of them.

nice screen name

Developers chime in, but I would think some new subdivisions would be happy to be unincorporated. Problem is, you have to join the city to get on the sewer system - it is a big stick.

And then you have the county tightly controlling how and where subdivisions can go up, especially non-contiguous.

If the city wants a damn park, they can buy the land from someone else who paid good money for it!

An ordinance like this is still theft no matter how you look at it or who is doing it.

Stop your whinin, if the parks increase the value of the property then developers won't need to be forced to hand it over, they will do it on their own.

I note that in Springfield the park district bought a bunch of farmland well in advance of the development of the surrounding area. This park is not a "subdivision park", but city park with a parking lot. There is more than one way to skin this cat.

Well stated Lazlo. As for the arguments of you "property rights" people, the government takes away my property in the form of taxes every time I turn around. I'm always told to not be selfish, because it's for the common good (like running empty MTD buses out to Ironwood). Cash assets are my property just like land is, and the government takes plenty of my "property" out of every paycheck for the common good.

You got it Adam. Liberals drive up housing prices, then put in rent control laws and create housing grants to "fix" the problems for those select few who are lucky.

(Does that little "urban" development in east Urbana have a park in it?)

(Does that little “urban” development in east Urbana have a park in it?)

Yes, the developer provided a small park in the middle of the development. This was one of the factors the city considered in granting variances favorable to the developer in terms of street width, lot size, lot setbacks, and the street/alley layout. Incidentally Urbana Park District prefers to have a few regional parks (like Meadowbrook) rather than a lot of small neighborhood parks. If someone tried to donate the lot next door to them as a park, I doubt the UPD would take it. Because Urbana views parks more as a regional amenity rather than a neighborhood amenity, I'd be suprised to see Urbana pursue a dedication requirement for 'pocket parks' in smaller developments. I don't know where the Champaign Park District comes down on this issue.

While it is true that parks and other lovely amenities do generally add increased value, since we are all already paying taxes, why should developers have to pay a 'special tax' just for being successful?

It may be a hard argument to accept if you consider parks to be frivolous luxuries, but the 'special tax' that developers pay is in effect a cost recovery fee recognizing the investment and the risk borne by past and existing taxpayers and past developers, from which you are trying to benefit through the one-time initial sale of your lots. If you want to take 120 acres in the desert somewhere and pack it with shacks, dirt streets and no amenities, go for it--there's probably a market. But you probably want to do it on the 120 acres next to Cherry Hills, because your shacks will be worth a lot more due to Champaign's jobs, stores, schools, parks, streets, sewers, running water, etc. Being able to cash in off your neighbors obligates you to further the standards of the community, and that may mean that your development has to take the next park, or school, or sewage pump station, or detention basin, or whatever. I can't stop you from thinking that being forced to dedicate land in your subdivision for a park or a school is "theft," but I can guarantee that the taxpayers in Champaign (especially in Cherry Hills) would think that plopping down your Shackville, reaping your profits and heading for the next town would constitute "theft" as well--it's like the old joke about having the ugliest house on the block--your neighbors keep your property values high, and you don't care that your house is ugly because you don't have to look at it.

The city doesn't exist to provide a windfall for developers. It exists to maximize economic and personal benefits for its citizens. As in most things, you can use "free market" arguments to support any argument, if you define the market creatively enough.

I think part of what needs to be remembered in this discussion is that donating land for parks has been voluntary up until now and it's not worked. Land either isn't donated at all, or "junk" land is donated, or detention ponds are called "park" and donated that way (along with all the problems that come with managing them). We can fuss all we want about rights and theft and the like, but humans have a disturbing way being human. Some developers have played fair and square and have been both civic minded and foreward thinking. But others have been cheap and short-term - and, as always, they're the ones who are spoiling it.

We don't have lakes or mountains. What we do have is land that seems able to grow just about anything. Parks are a natural for C-U; without them, we have very little to offer other than cookie-cutter homes that are "affordable". There's nothing wrong with that, but there are also thousands of cities across the country that offer the same thing - and many of them even have rivers, lakes, hills, abundant trees. We have a World-Class University upon whom our economy largely rests. We need to be attractive to it and its employees. Parks help - and if the big.small.all meetings are any indication, they help A LOT! It was something that people asked for over and over, again and again. And while I'm not against the City (read: you, since you pay the $$ the Park District would use to buy the land for those parks) buying land for parks, I am against it being one sided. Why should you alone have to pay for a park, while the developer doesn't?

Lazlo, which developments make the most money for developers, ones with high sqr foot requirements and stringent building covenants or those with much lower minimum build specs? Can you sell a lot for $35,000 that someone will put a trailer on?

The developments that make the most money are the ones with the most lots. Lot sizes in most of the new developments are close to the buildable minimum, with some variation to accommodate different house types (a smart developer would want to have some lots big enough for ranches, because some buyers still want them). Take a look at Cherry Hills or Stone Creek and you won't see any 3/4-acre lots like you might see around the Champaign Country Club or in some "enclaves" throughout C-U. These lots are very desirable and worth a lot more than the average lot, but they're not worth three times what a 1/4-acre lot is worth, so you'll never see new ones.

Most subdivisions have covenants that prohibit trailers. Although minimum square footages exist, they rarely come into play--no one who pays $75,000 for a lot is going to build a 1,000 square foot house on it anyway, even if it's designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and built by Jesus Christ & Co., Carpenters.

If you're building houses, you also want to maximize density since the house price dominates the lot price. The most profitable approach is to build high-priced homes, cheaping out as much as you can on boring stuff like the foundation and the structure, and focusing on flashy amenities (pro-style appliances, marble kitchens, whirlpool tubs, designer fixtures) which aren't much costlier to install, but have a much higher profit margin. You also want to build bigger homes, since the cost of adding a few extra bedrooms is pretty low but adds a lot to the selling price. The worst possible business model is building affordable 1,500 square foot houses on half-acre lots, like everybody was doing everywhere in the 1950s. The best at this point, based on what I'm seeing around town, is upscale zero-lot-line duplexes and triplexes. If you're looking for a forward-looking opportunity, the high-end condo market (indoor parking, health club in the building, doorman, that kind of thing) is way underserved--take a look at the prices at One Main sometime. Put something like that with deeded parking somewhere within two or three blocks of Green and Wright and you've got yourself a gold mine.

On the "who pays for the parks" point, I think it comes down to whether you want the Park District taking your taxes to pay a premium to the developer for the land to build the park, or making the developer cough it up as a condition of development. The most cost-effective deal for the taxpayers would be for the city itself to buy all the land within 2 miles of the corporate limits while it's cheap (or heck, just take it by Eminent Domain, thanks to Kelo), and make developers compete for the right to participate in its development, with things being done exactly the way the City Council wants them done, of course. There are actually towns that developed that way, with the land held in land trusts and so forth. I'm not advocating that as a solution, but the "big picture" is that in the end, every cornfield around town is going to be developed, some money is going to end up in the hands of the guy who owns it now, some of the land is going to end up being owned by the public, and some is going to be owned by individuals. There are a lot of ways to structure how the money changes hands to get from here to there.

One more thing: I don't want to sound anti-developer. Land development is not a risk-free, easy money proposition--buy a cornfield, put up some stakes, and watch the money roll in. The developer pays for the infrastructure (streets, sewers, utilities, detention), and a lot of acreage goes to streets, detention basins and other things besides buildable lots. When it comes down to it, it's a business with risks and profits commensurate with most other typical businesses: good developers make a lot of money, bad ones go broke, and most do okay. I do believe that like any other business owner, developers have a responsibility to the community in which they operate and an obligation to conduct their business in a way that improves that community. Good developers will work with the cities and will often voluntarily exceed the minimum requirements. The minimum requirements are there to keep the lazy ones and the irresponsible ones from sticking the taxpayer with negative consequences.

In regards to the land for parks, we are not "defending" developers. We are saying that the more requirements you put on them, the more expensive the lots are going to be. We are also for consumer choice - choosing between lots near parks, and those not near parks.

Lazlo, you seem to be pretty educated in this area - is there nothing government is doing locally that is driving up housing costs? Is it just big city people moving here with a bunch of home equity, and college kids renting all the older homes that could be serving the low-cost housing market?

redstatewannabe said,

Is it just big city people moving here with a bunch of home equity, and college kids renting all the older homes

What? People buying and renting? Not those evil middle class people from, oh my, the big city, and students, too? How dare they come here!

Very nice. So welcoming.

Not in my town, get a grip. I was not saying anything disparaging about college students or people moving in from bigger cities, I was simply posing a theory about home prices. I am glad you are here, glad you came - welcome to Champaign-Urbana.

Lazlo, I am going to take your word for it - thanks for the insights. I still worry that some of the fallout from the big.small.all project will be more and more requirements, and those things do cost money.

not in my town,

your initial response made you sound like an offended recent arrival - I apologize for my incorrect inference.

and since you obviously have much more historical knowledge than I, please provide us some. Do you think the housing market in this area is at all distorted, or is "affordable housing" a non-issue? Anything the gov'ts could do better? Anything the gov'ts have done that has helped?

"not in my town," you just described the status quo in Urbana, except that the city also has requirements for streets, sidewalks, sewers and storm water detention, and a zoning ordinance. That's about it.

Incidentally, the profit margin is higher on a million dollar house than on a $150,000 house. You build $150,000 houses because the market for million dollar homes is limited. I think the least expensive new homes in C-U are still in Savannah Green and I think all of those have sold for over $100,000. Some of the newer neighborhoods north and northwest of Champaign are supposed to be affordable but I haven't looked at the homes yet or seen any prices.

Lazlo, have you ever had to build a sub-division and pay the bills. You know squat when it means making a profit off of a property. That's why in American we have a free market economy and private property Rights. Yes they are rights. Our economy is the greatest in the world because people can make a profit and make the decisions and not some pin head in a government over burdening business with stupid regulations driving jobs out of the United States.

I admire the way you managed to combine a bogus assumption, a personal attack, a civics lesson, and a reductio ad absurdum argument that the development regulations (under which we're experiencing one of the greatest building booms in Champaign-Urbana history) are somehow anti-American. If I felt it was worth my time to respond to personal attacks and paranoid rants, I'd consider this a real opportunity.

Answers:

real econ growth
substance
no
ip

Oh, yeah, and since you said Champaign County and not Champaign Urbana, obviously agriculture is a huge part of the export economy.

Quit whining about Savoy and fix the numerous problems at MTD so it actually takes care of its current taxpayers instead of sprawling into low density housing.

What's wrong with carefully targeted user fees to cover externalized costs created by new developments, rather than higher property taxes on existing homeowners to subsidize new home buyers?

Property rights? Well, Bill's motto seems to be "you have the right to remain silent, or lose your job."

Since he knows better than us stupid taxpayers what is best for us.

Run,

User fees would go specifically for maintaining the status quo levels of service for fire, police, schools, government administration, sewage treatment, lines for sewage, gas, power, water, communications, roads, parks, traffic signs/signals, transportation, etc. that would need to be increased with new developments (and not covered by increased property tax revenues from the development).

Would you prefer to raise property taxes on senior citizens on fixed income rather than charge user fees on high income workers buying new houses to pay for the expanded services required by a larger population? Obviously, new residents shouldn't have to exclusively pay for improved levels of services, just maintaining the status quo of services.

While I was only referring to new construction, does annexing an area incur any new obligations by the various taxing districts to those residents? If it's all pure windfall for taxing districts, why don't they gobble up everything they can?

Running for office on a motto of tax the seniors to subsidize the new high income construction doesn't sound too swift. Maybe it would sound better if it was subsidizing low-income housing for immigrants, but that probably also loses votes.

Clearly, maintaining the status quo or slow, steady growth are much cheaper, easier, and less disruptive then rapid expansion. Admitedly, opportunities to get-rich-quick are fewer, but so are the chances of getting badly burned.

Can't back up your argument huh. Don't include the fact that there is a housing boom in your failed attempt at saying its ok to over regulate the economy. Just think how many jobs would be created and poor and elderly could buy their own homes if you left wing nuts would get out of the way?

Run,

Can't make an argument without going ad-hominem?

Let's try again.

"Anon”“You are losing it. The cities of Champaign, Urbana and Savoy have governmental agreements to cut up the annexed tax pie. The taxing bodies fight over who gets the money constantly."

My question is why don't the cities gobble up everything they can right now if it's such a big windfall? Or are the annex agreements for areas West of Urbana, NE of Champaign and South of Savoy are contested by the other cities?

"As far as the elderly are concerned they should pay there far share. I know that some are poor and should get assistance. They still decide for themselves where and how big their houses are."

So if an almost retired boomer's property taxes start skyrocket on their modest house because it's become a high growth area, and then they have to start living on a new lower fixed income, they should essentially be forced to sell and move somewhere else, just because their property is highly coveted by others? With tax systems like this, who needs emminent domain to give homeowners the boot?

"Clearly, maintaining the status quo or slow, steady growth are much cheaper, easier, and less disruptive then rapid expansion. Admitedly, opportunities to get-rich-quick are fewer, but so are the chances of getting badly burned."

Volitile markets create opportunities for big rewards and big loses. More stable markets create more stable economies. Which do you want in C/U? Do you want overwhelming growth like some suburbs that finish building a new school, then have to build another one because it's already outgrown? Remember the chaos of stagflation in the 70's, or the tech bubble? Have you read about the history of the stock market prior to 1900 when major panics and collapses were common? Slow and steady growth wins the day!

BTW, if you don't think there should be storm water retention, what do you tell the homeowners when their basements flood? Buyer beware? People don't have time anymore to worry about unscrupulous cheats.