"ENVIRONMENTAL FEES"

[berwynson]

Many municipalities are charging a hefty fee "up-front" assessed against each new dwelling being built. Knowing Berwyn has little area for new building, but that the suburban areas are growing very appreciably, I wonder if this sort of "fee" is being added in Chicagoland.

For example, the desert southwest, namely Arizona, is growing very rapidly, especially the Phoenix metropolitan area. Nearby Chandler averaged around $6,000 for their environmental fee for a typical single-family home construction, highest in that area; Phoenix was modest at $3500.

The fee is charged upon application for a building permit, and usually is "floated" in the mortgage loan. That means over the loan's lifetime the buyer may wind up paying perhaps 3 times the amount of the fee; the municipality gets it's gravy right away.

The reason given for these fees is that they are intended to "slow down the extremely rapid growth of the area"! The growth is indeed too fast and too much, as some of the desert areas already are experiencing fresh water shortages (notably Tucson). It seems to me that this is a poor and unenviable way for cities to be augmenting their budgets, like unexpected taxes.

Are any of you aware of such practice in Illinois? If they aren't doing it yet, don't tell them about it!
Thanks for looking!  Berwynson

[OakParkSpartan]

Also known as impact fees.   

And the residents of a small town should bear the cost for expanding their infrastructure when a new subdivision is built why?

It's not an augmentation, it  makes a lot of sense.  Why pave over some of the best farmland  in the world?

Cheers,
Brian

[rbain]

Well those new developments have huge impacts on the surrounding communities. Particularly in the water-starved southwest. Growing up in Northern California I was always aware of the huge amounts of water diverted from our families and farmers to fill the swimming pools of people who thought it was a good idea to move  somewhere with no water, and then demand it be piped in thousands of miles from people who had the sense to move where there IS water. The first time I flew to Phoenix I was nearly sick with disgust at the waste of water. It just seems absurd. I won't even mention L.A. (I'm a 4th generation Northern Californian. Disgust with the wastes of S.Cal. was inculcated in me from birth.)
Locally, I don't know how else communities would be able to suddenly accommodate hundreds of new students, buy additional streets & san equipment, hire new personnel and social services for the huge influx of people and cars, water and electrical usage, etc.
-Rob

[Bear]

Rob, you must have been amazed when you moved here
and saw the abundance of our Great Lakes.

[Terri]

Also known as impact fees. 
And the residents of a small town should bear the cost for expanding their infrastructure when a new subdivision is built why?
It's not an augmentation, it  makes a lot of sense.  Why pave over some of the best farmland  in the world?
Cheers,
Brian

Illinois has rich farming soil that will be paved if the proposed Peotone/Will County Airport goes as planned.  Doubt the officials pushing the airport care about the environment, they are stripping the future of Will/Kankakee farmers. 

Terri

[rbain]

Rob, you must have been amazed when you moved here
and saw the abundance of our Great Lakes.

Oh we had water. We just tended to conserve it because we knew it was limited. We also saw the pipelines taking it to the southwest so they could put golf courses in the desert.
What really amazed me here was rain in the summer. We NEVER had rain in the summer. And fireflys. No fireflys there. And cicadas. And warm foggy days- creepy.
-Rob

[berwynson]

All of your points are well placed. Brian, as far as paving over farmland: if you mean in the Midwest, I agree. However, in the Southwest, even though water is extravagantly wasted, as pointed out, agricultural use of water accounts for approx. 80% of usage, the remainder domestic. Therefore, paving over the desert actually SAVES water. Sounds impossible, I know.

If you haven't seen a deep-well irrigation pump in operation: an approx. 12-inch diameter outlet pipe gushes water with such force that, sticking my hand in the stream almost yanked me off my feet! Near Phoenix, often on Reservation land (Pima Indians), those wells are 1000 feet deep, or more. The water is loaded with nitrates, not drinkable. The pump motors are as large as 300 horsepower! Lifting water up against gravity a distance of 1000 feet takes a great amount of power.

The water is carried in open ditches, some concrete lined, to immense fields planted in cotton  from Feb. to Nov.- it takes cotton that long to mature. The months between see thousands of acres of melons growing; once we saw artichokes! It was kind of quaint to see Indian families languishing in the irrigation ditches when the temperature was over 110 degrees!

What I was leading up to here is my feeling that eventually fresh water will become as big an issue as petroleum. Berwynson

[OakParkSpartan]

Water is  a  huge topic out west.  And guess  who has a great big  pot of water?  The midwest.  Happily, for now, there are  treaties in  place preventing the wholesale withdrawl of water from the great lakes.

Cheers,
Brian

[berwynson]

Thank all of you for the info. Since the topic seems to have swayed to water:

The miles and miles of crops seen while driving I-80 through, say, Iowa, reveals the farming importance. Midwestern farming is influenced a lot by rainfall (or the lack of it), and a short (comparatively growing season).

Arizona farming depends not at all on rainfall, the desert areas planted in crops average 7 inches of rainfall per year. Irrigation water consists of either water purchased from Salt River Project, or pumped groundwater. Indeed, rain is frowned upon once the cotton bolls begin to open!

So, coupled with no need for rain at all, and a 12 month growing season, with 4 typical 90-day crops per year easily possible, the returns are high. This will change should water availability decrease.  Berwynson