Officials wary of new home fee
By: CHRIS BAGLEY - Staff Writer
Study: Growth will require $13.8 billion in freeways | ∞
RIVERSIDE -- A newly released study puts a nearly $14 billion price tag on the cost of future freeway expansions in western Riverside County, but representatives of local governments balked Wednesday at the idea of building some of that cost into the price of new houses and apartments.
The $13.8 billion estimate does not include freeway expansion deemed necessary to relieve current congestion, but only the new lanes needed beyond that to keep traffic flowing as the region continues to add jobs, houses and increased freight traffic through the year 2030.
The study estimated that population growth would drive the need for 33.4 percent of the additional freeway capacity, potentially justifying fees totalling $4.6 billion on new residents and houses.
The study, by international consulting firm Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quaid & Douglass, stemmed from a series of four lawsuits Temecula officials filed against Riverside County from 2001 through 2003. The city alleged the county government had approved thousands of new houses in Menifee and French Valley without expanding road capacity there.
Settlements required the county to guarantee road improvements and to split the cost of the freeway study with the city and the Riverside County Transportation Commission, an agency created by the county and the two dozen cities within it. The county, city and commission are responsible for about $280,000 each in financing the study's $840,000 cost.
Local governments already charge a $9,700 fee on each new house to fund construction of surface roads. Marion Ashley, one of the five county supervisors on the commission, estimated a similar fee for freeways could pencil out to at least $5,000 a house if growth continues as expected. A building-industry representative predicted a new freeway fee would quickly grow to equal the existing Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee.
At a commission meeting Wednesday morning, members acknowledged the impact of population growth on traffic and none disputed the $4.6 billion figure. But with even modest local houses costing more than $300,000 and the building industry in a major slump, some members were skeptical about placing another fee on new houses. The commission voted unanimously to take no immediate action, but members agreed that several should get together to study possibilities for funding the roads.
"I'm adamantly opposed to charging the people of this county for a problem that's caused out of Los Angeles," said Riverside City Councilman Steve Adams, who represents his city on the commission. "We are servicing the rest of the nation. We are being punished for getting their goods through."
Adams was referring to the port complex of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which together account for 36 percent of the cargo shipped through U.S. ports, including the growing volume of imports from China and other Asian countries. Some of that commerce contributes to the region's economy when it passes through distribution centers, while some simply passes through on the way to places like Arizona, Abilene and Arkansas. Adams and several other commission members called for shipping companies to help cover the cost of new freeway lanes.
Steve DeBaun, an attorney who advises the commission, wasn't immediately able to say what sort of fee system might be allowed under state or federal law.
Local sales taxes and other existing fees are expected to cover $4.7 billion of the estimated $13.8 billion cost of keeping up with growth. Even if fees on new houses bring in $4.6 billion, it isn't clear where the final $4.5 billion would come from.
Ashley called the study's results "very sobering."
"I think we all realized there was a gap out there, but nobody thought it was that much," Ashley said.
Other options include new taxes on gasoline or general sales; several commissioners agreed that either would be politically unpopular. Calimesa City Councilman John Chlebnik warned that any local fee might hurt cities and businesses near the borders of Riverside County if it pushes home buyers or drivers to spend their money on the other side of the county line.
Several commission members slammed the state government for creating new social programs and requiring counties to pay the costs. Others condemned state environmental regulations as bringing more costs and bureaucratic red tape than environmental protection.
Supervisor John Tavaglione said additional charges for gasoline or new houses might backfire. Riverside and other "self-help" counties risk becoming suckers, he suggested.
"The more good we do, the more they do -- the state -- to stick us with the bill," Tavaglione said. "I am completely against putting more fees on our homeowners."
Several commission members and building-industry representative Borre Winckel noted the building slump of the last 12 months, which nonetheless followed five years of record-setting growth.
At the very least, they said, the recent slowdown should give the commission time to consider a new fee carefully before imposing it. And besides, commission spokesman John Standiford said, the commission may not be able to pressure local governments to collect a new freeway fee as regional agencies were able to do in pushing the earlier mitigation fee for surface roads
Supervisor Jeff Stone, who helped initiate Temecula's lawsuits as a member of its City Council, said he agreed with most of the suggestions Wednesday. He sympathized with concerns that Southern California home prices may have already soared out of first-time home buyers' reach.
Still, he argued, the transportation agency shouldn't immediately dismiss the idea of a new-home fee to fund freeways.
"There is an impact of new development on the county's freeway system," Stone said.
-- Contact staff writer Chris Bagley at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2615, or cbagley@californian.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Temecula Resident wrote on Dec 13, 2007 12:48 AM:Let's see.....if they don't have to pay the fee, developers will charge less for their homes, right? They'll be really good guys and knock $9700 off each house they sell, right? Give me a break! Developers will charge the highest home prices the market will allow regardless of whether there's a fee attached. Our freeways are gridlocked now! New people moving here and adding cars to our freeways should have to pay for new space on those freeways. It's that simple. Lord knows the state won't do squat and the federal government is worse. If we want to keep our freeways moving, we've got to take matters into our own hands. This fee makes perfect sense and if no homes are built, no added freeway space will be needed. If new homes ARE built, developers should pay for the new roads to accommodate the new people.
Highways should be paid for by all wrote on Dec 13, 2007 6:57 AM:That is the reason we have bonds. To have everyone that uses the freeways pay, current generation and future generations who will also be using them. To have new home buyes bear the cost is great for us current owners, but a shaft for new home owners and renters. Build freeways with bonds, much more fair.
And wrote on Dec 13, 2007 7:37 AM:How much do those 18 wheelers pay in road taxes? It might astonish the public to know what one truck pays. ...
The Law wrote on Dec 13, 2007 7:39 AM:According to the law, you can't charge new residents for existing needs. If new development doesn't want to pay their fair share, then they shouldn't be allowed to build. Those of us who are already live here can then figure out how to solve our existing problem without making it worse with new development.
No to Bond Issues wrote on Dec 13, 2007 7:49 AM:As a lifelong Southern California resident, I have already paid for too many bond issues, increased gas taxes, and Measures voted in by the public. Someone please explain to me why I should continue to have to pay for freeways that are being congested by new people moving in. I've paid my fair share already. People like me should not have to subsidize new growth. Let new housing pay its own way.
Alf wrote on Dec 13, 2007 8:10 AM:While there is the idea that highways should be paid for by all, the flip side of the coin is that if there were not the increase in people and houses and industry, there would not be the need to upgrade the highways. Maintaining highways is one thing, but those who force the upgrading of the highways must pay for it. The true cost of new housing must reflect and contain the cost of upgrading the infrastructure or it is a sham. Face it, if a new road, widening of existing roads, higher capacity for electricity, gas, water and sewer were not included in the price of the new houses and apartments, but instead foisted off onto the existing people as well as the new people, THAT would be the rip-off. I built my own house and I know, full well, about fees, all $20,000-plus of them, that had to be paid before we ever broke ground, way back in 1993. Merry Christmas! Alf.
Barbara wrote on Dec 13, 2007 8:24 AM:It's not just homeowners who are using the freeways in our local communities. Like the article said, it's transportation/distribution companies that get the most out of our freeways. Without the freeways...everything comes to a stop. The county should put a moratorium on new home development for the next few years. There is plenty of homes on the market as it is now. Why do we need more?
Karl wrote on Dec 13, 2007 8:39 AM:Imagine if all the gasoline tax went where it was voted to go. To the roads and freeways. We don't need new taxes or fees, we need the fools to quit spending money like drunken sailors.
Concerned-1 wrote on Dec 13, 2007 9:07 AM:We already pay too much in taxes that were supposed to go for transportation infrastructure. The state is a giant black hole that will keep sucking money as long as it can. The feds are no better. Putting the tax on new development will keep the market from recovering and have ripple effects throughout our economy. Until we stand up to the state and federal politicians ..., we will have this catch 22.
cm wrote on Dec 13, 2007 9:30 AM:Why would you put the cost on housing and have a paid for freeway before anyone even moves in? Does that mean we won't have to pay ongoing real estate taxes or sales taxes or all the other taxes that people have to pay after they move in? If so, fine. If not, pay for freeways out of general funds. Isn't there also a specific transportation tax we already voted in to expand roads to meet future needs?
Paul wrote on Dec 13, 2007 9:55 AM:Why is it that in this State everyone always thinks transportation is synonymous with the word freeways? 14 billion will build a high speed rail between LA and Riverside AND between Riverside and San Diego. Put the tracks right down the middle of the freeways (actually parking lots.)
Watcher wrote on Dec 13, 2007 11:44 AM:What's new? Our elected officials continue to betray the voters by forcing existing residents to foot the bill for new transportation infrastructure required to support more sprawl development. As long as the voters are sleeping on their couches or watching football games and ignoring what's happening, our taxes will continue to be increased. Wake up and get mad!
Alf wrote on Dec 13, 2007 12:19 PM:Well, "cm" at 9:30AM, when the new houses are sold, i.e. people move in, they pay for the cost of upgrading the infrastructure, it must be part of the price. Remember that you don't put in the houses AND THEN decide "Well, now we will tear up the streets to put in bigger water, gas, sewer, etc. lines", that must be done BEFORE the new houses are built. Merry Christmas! Alf.
Well GEE. wrote on Dec 13, 2007 12:48 PM:The $$$ is going to have to come from somewhere. You wouldn't expect developers or the Gov't to pay it. Would you?
ModernRock wrote on Dec 13, 2007 1:34 PM:We pay so many taxes: gas, electric, phone, property, etc... There is plenty of tax money out there to build our freeways. The Gov loves to spend on frivolous projects and programs that are really unnecessary. They need to get there priorities straight and do what is needed. And Freeway expansion is one of them. More taxes is not the answer.
Concerned-1 wrote on Dec 13, 2007 2:15 PM:FYI on the high speed rail system. There is no route between Riverside and San Diego because of the grades. The one route is through the Santa Margarita Canyon. That was tried and used in the 1890s but it washed out twice. After the second time, they gave up. Anyway today it's a nature preserve so there's no way.
Derek wrote on Dec 13, 2007 2:44 PM:Why should people who don't drive have to help pay for freeways? Instead build toll roads and let them pay for themselves.
Karl wrote on Dec 13, 2007 6:10 PM:I still say impose a toll north of Fallbrook for all those 15 South commuters. You guys are killing us. Go to Riverside for jobs or estblish jobs in your " the houses are cheaper" community. The last time I was up there it was worse than SD or LA. Now we in Escondido have to pay for your travels up North for cheaper homes? Stay home.
George wrote on Dec 13, 2007 6:32 PM:The reason we have traffic congestion is revealed by the SANDAG staff when they say: "We agree with a stronger push to get people out of their vehicles." This is why: "Only $8 billion (14 percent) in the RTP is building new freeway segments or adding general purpose lanes. Roughly $30 billion (52 percent) is for transit, Managed/HOV Lanes, and promoting alternatives to single occupancy vehicles." 33% of funds are supposed to be used on our freeways! Both quotes are responses to public input on the Regional Transportation Plan and can be found at http://www.sandag.org (a government website) in the agenda for the board meeting held on November 9th.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement