David Friday, November 30, 2007

Development

Majority of Wake County Supports the Transfer Tax

Public Policy Poll released a new Poll about Transfer Tax support in Wake County. Among likely voters in our rapidly growing county, a Transfer Tax is supported 49% to 40% opposing.  This makes sense with the heightened awareness of growth problems in the area.  As our green space is gobbled by sprawl, our infrastructure needs reinforcement to handle our burgeoning size.  That is not disputed by either side of the debate. 

What is disputed is how to pay for the infrastructure. A Transfer Tax would be a set fee when a residential property has a change in ownership.  Developers and Realtors have aggressively fought Transfer Taxes across North Carolina- and in many cases they have been successful in defeating any measures to institute one.  Fought may be too light of a word- they have acted as if the government was taking their last meal- Greg Flynn says that the Realtors Association has spent $6.50 for each vote against the Transfer Tax. While not perfect, the Transfer Tax offers a solution for paying for infrastructure that is not burdensome to long time residents.  The Realtor association prefers alternative solutions grounded in higher property taxes or increased sales tax- neither one any more appealing than the Transfer Tax- only more distributed among existing residents. 

Public Policy Poll’s complete Analysis of the Numbers

  • brian_M12/01 01:11 PM

    I’m a little confused as to which body pays for roads and bridges. Say we find that the bridge on Capital Boulevard, the oooooooooold one that connects Capital to Wade Avenue, is about to collapse and is deemed unsafe and a priority for replacement, does this tax come in to play? I’ve always thought that this was the domain of state government, specifically NCDOT. Which means that it wouldn’t get done until somebody passes the desk of the person responsible, and accidentally bumps it, waking the person up who sits there.

  • Adam12/01 01:16 PM

    Who pays the transfer tax? The person buying the property? So if I bought a new house, I would have to pay it? Or is this just for new people to the area?

  • ttax12/01 03:28 PM

    Adam,
    Transfer taxes are usually paid for by the buyer.  Of course that is negotiable—the buyer can always ask the seller to come down by the amount of the tax.  If you buy a new house, or an existing house, you pay it—where you are moving from, or if you are the building is your primary residence, is irrelevant.

  • ttax12/01 03:49 PM

    Brian,
    Growth’s burden on public infrastructure includes roads, but a lot more too—primarily schools, but also water, sewer, trash collection, landfills and parks.  Regarding roads: For the past fifty years DOT has had complete authority over the purse, even on county roads, bt that changed this summer when the legislature authorized the counties to raise money to fund road projects.

  • brian_M12/01 05:06 PM

    Thanks for the info, ttax…maybe if the county is in charge, some of this stuff might get done.

  • Adam12/01 05:35 PM

    So this is a tax paid by anyone buying a new or preexisting house. Are the vast majority of home sales initiated by people from outside of the area? Because that would seem to be the only way to justify this tax as a way to handle infrastructure costs for the population increase. Otherwise, we are just adding to the costs of local people buying houses. And if the people are already local, they are not adding to the need for infrastructure improvements.

    The only exception to that I can see is if locals are moving out further and further from existing infrastructure. If that was the case, we are better off taxing the building or selling of new homes in these areas.

    Here’s my solution:
    1. New residents fee: Anyone moving to the county from outside the county pays a one time fee.
    2. We put a tax on all babies being born (these freeloaders are inheriting our infrastructure and need to pay up).

    It would be the very first xenophobic/anti-baby tax initiative. Might be tough politically smile

  • David12/01 08:34 PM

    There is sort of a “New Home” fee that could work alternatively, called an Impact Fee.  The problems with the Transfer Tax are obvious- but higher property taxes yearly or an increased sales tax seem even more burdensome to legacy home owners.

  • ttax12/02 01:55 AM

    > maybe if the county is in charge, some of this stuff might get done.

    because with the county in charge, we’ve got locally elected officials (county commissioners) making decisions.

  • Adam12/02 03:20 AM

    Ultimately, won’t the problem self correct? The people moving here will be subject to local taxes like everyone else. That should increase the tax revenue accordingly. May not be a quick infusion though. That’s why we get the bond initiatives.

    Personally, I’m not against sharing the burden for people moving here. The benefit is felt by all (more state/local tax revenue, good job market, stronger economy, appreciating housing prices, on and on).

  • ttax12/02 10:32 AM

    But is the growth happening in such a way that the increase in revenue is linearly proportional to the growth?

    Are the expenses felt immediately, or are they delayed, e.g. to when the kids start school, to when the landfill becomes full, to when new water & sewer plants are needed.

    If the burden of growth on infrastructure outstrips the increased revenue, yes, the problem will become self-correcting when this becomes such a miserable place to live that nobody moves here anymore.  Do we want to be the next Detroit?  When the misery hits, its not so easy to undo, e.g. on the Mississippi - Louisiana coast repairing from Katrina they’re finding that though a large percentage of homes are gone, they can’t cut back on the number of miles of water/sewer because there’s still some homes out near the ends of the lines, even if none in the middle.

    No one is suggesting replacing property tax and sales tax with real-estate transfer tax—no shifting all the costs—just adding a transfer tax into the equation.

  • RaleighRob12/02 08:08 PM

    Brian-
    For roads, if it’s a state road, DOT has the jurisdiction, BUT if there’s a need and it ranks too low on DOT’s budget list, a city may pick up the tab to have the work done earlier.  Tryon Road in Raleigh and Cary is a good example of this…it’s a state road but the two cities are paying for the work. 

    ALSO—there are tons of city streets (mostly small residential) that are completely owned by the city and not the state. 

    This is mostly an issue when talking about city road bonds or Meekers’ proposed impact fee increase.  The county putting up a transfer tax is more likely going to fund county services….mainly schools but also maybe libraries, health services, jails, etc.

  • Adrian Hands12/04 01:59 AM

    “Raleigh Neighborhood College” is a great way to learn about the division of responsibilities between the city and the county, as well as to get a peek into the workings of various city agencies, e.g. 911, police, fire, budget, planning, housing, transit, etc…  If you’re reading this thread you probably should sign up.  Contact your Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) to get signed up.  As I recall, you meet one night per week for a few weeks, learn a lot of good stuff and get a Q&A;session with staff in each dept..

    http://search.raleighnc.gov/
    “CAC”
    or
    “Neighborhood College”

    Note to the city: The URLs on the website are attrocious!  Specify clean URLs in your next site redesign!

  • Not David12/04 07:31 PM

    Transfer taxes, by law, are paid by the SELLER…

Welcome to New Raleigh. We welcome your participation in the ongoing discussion. Before posting we ask that you read our Comment Policy and we invite you to register with our site. If you want to keep up with the news on our blog, subscribe to the RSS feed or get emailed every time we post.




Remember my information for next time I comment

Send me an email of follow-up comments?