The grantors tax essentially charges newcomers.

The grantor’s tax is a tax on the Sellers, rather than the buyers. Granted, the sellers pass it on to the buyers in the purchase price, but I have never (yet) seen it deliberately factored into the price when we are determining the asking price for a home.

There are some things that really shouldn’t change, and the ability to benefit or be hurt by your own decisions is one of them

Unfortunately, this goes against the grain of virtually everything that most levels of government are trying to accomplish.

I don’t have the answers, but believe that solutions can be found where those involved have concerns other than re-election at the forefront of the analysis and decision-making process.

In my home town they used a similar plan to raise money for conservation purchases, easements, beach access and other public amenities. This made sesne because the people who were developing were also paying for conservation.

I agree with you that this tax is too narrow and benefits many who won’t pay. On the other hand, it is kind of a tax on instability: people don’t like change.

But, we live in a highly mobile society. I believe it should be easy and inexpensive to change homes in order to encourage people to live where they work.

I don’t know that localities have much choice but to approve development. If they refuse then it is like squeezing a balloon, those people have already happened and they are going to live somewhere. If the issue is lack of infrastructure, then it is going to have to be planned and paid for. The question is do you bring in more people and have them help pay, or do you stick all the bill on the existing residents until the infrastructure exists and is paid for, and then open the door.

I think the argument that localities are wrongfully approving development without sufficient infrastructure is disingenuous. The next time someone says that, ask him how much he is willing to raise taxes on himself to make the infrastructure available to others. The real answer is that we don’t want the infrastructure, the bills to provide it, or the others to use it: we don’t like change.

Change is going to happen anyway. The alternative is stagnation and unemployment. Deferring the process of planning, or calling for more study is amatter of strategic stalemate: we don’t like change, so we will put it off as long as possible.

If the plan is really to include quantifiable and achievable goals relating to congestion reduction and safety, transit and HOV usage, job/housing ratios, job and housing access to transit and pedestrian facilities, air quality, and/or per-capita vehicle miles traveled, then what happens to personal interests? Doesn’t this sound like the government is going to plan every aspect of your life and investments? Where does the free market have room to play in this?

Does anybody really think the government is mart enough to do this? No, of course not. In practice the way we do this is a kind of giant Delphi process, where each person makes decision based on the cards on the table, the conditions at hand, the rules of the game, personal preference, and money in the pot.

If the rules of the game are constantly changing according to the wishes of special interests, or if the rules of the game are that the government is going to make all your moves for you, then what fun is that? There are some things that really shouldn’t change, and the ability to benefit or be hurt by your own decisions is one of them.

The way we wind up making the best global decisions is by summing up all the goodindividual decisions. It is how we apply maximum brainpower to a complex (and constantly changing) problem.

The way we generate the most public benefit is by summing up all the individual benefits. The morons who actually believe that a statewide transportation plan can balance all those variables described and actually work, just don’t get it.