HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 LEGISLATIVE REPORTS (AB1457 & SB670) 03-20-07
AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Item
Reviewed:
City Manager
16
~
Finance Director N/A
MEETING DATE: MARCH 20, 2007
TO:
WilliAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SUBJECT:
lEGISLATIVE REPORTS
SUMMARY:
Attached are the following legislative items for discussion by the City Council.
. AB1457 (Huffman) State Parks: Roads
. SB670 (Correa) Real Property Transfer Fees
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
~ dAvC ~ 1fv-!3~
Maria R. Huizar .
Chief Deputy City Clerk
AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Item
Reviewed:
City Manager
16
H
Finance Director N/A
MEETING DATE: MARCH 20, 2007
FROM:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
LISA WOOLERY, COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER
TO:
SUBJECT:
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: AB1457 (HUFFMAN) STATE PARKS: ROADS
SUMMARY:
Mayor Pro Tem Amante requested that this item be placed on the agenda for
discussion. AB1457 would prohibit the extension of 241 Toll Road through a state park.
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of the Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact to the City.
Lisa Woolery
Communications Manager
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-2007-o8 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL
No. 1457
Introduced by Assembly Member ~uffman
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Feuer)
February 23, 2007
An act to add Section 5012.3 to the Public Resources Code, relating
to parks and recreation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1457, as introduced, Huffman. Parks and recreation: state parks:
roads.
(1) Under existing law, the Department of Parks and Recreation has
control of the state park system. Existing law authorizes the department
to impose conditions and restrictions on the development of a specified
roadway on Mulholland. Scenic Corridor and Topanga State Park or
other state-owned parkland, and upon contiguous portions of Mulholland
Drive, if the Director of Parks and Recreation finds that geologic or
other circumstances exist that cause or may cause substantial damage
to state-owned park resources.
This bill would prohibit a state or local agency, as defined, from
funding the construction of, seeking funding to construct, or authorizing
or approving the construction of, a road, as defined, or portion thereof,
or making an improvement or extension to an existing road, that will
physically encroach upon, traverse, bisect, or impair the recreational
value of a state park property, as defined, unless the director determines
that specified conditions are met. The bill would authorize the
department to recover the costs incurred by the department as a result
of making those determinations by imposing a fee for those costs on
the proponent of the project for the road. The bill would authorize a
99
AB 1457
-2-
person or class of persons to file a civil action to enjoin a person or
entity, including a state or local agency, that is alleged to violate the
prohibition.
To the extent the bill would impose new requirements on a local
agency, to determine whether a project falls within the prohibition, the
bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory
prOVISIons.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact asfollows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 5012.3 is added to the Public Resources
2 Code, to read:
3 5012.3. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
4 except as provided in subdivision (b), a state or local agency shall
5 not fund the construction of, seek funding to construct, or authorize
6 or approve the construction of, a road or portion thereof, or make
7 an improvement or extension to an existing road, that will
8 physically encroach upon, traverse, bisect, or impair the
9 recreational value of a state park property.
1 0 (b) Subdivision ( a) does not apply if the director determines
11 that all of the following conditions are met:
12 (1) The project for the road includes all feasible planning to
13 minimize harm to the state park property.
14 (2) There are no feasible alternatives to the project for the road
15 that would avoid impacting the state park property.
16 (3) One of the following applies:
17 (A) The road is necessary for the operation, maintenance, or
18 use of the state park property for state park purposes.
19 (B) The road is necessary for the prevention or suppression of
20 fires that pose a threat to life and property.
21 (C) The road is necessary for the construction, operation, or
22 maintenance of utilities located on the state park property.
99
-3-
AB 1457
1 (c) Costs incurred by the department as a result of making the
2 determinations set forth in subdivision (b) may be recovered by
3 the department by imposing a fee for those costs on the proponent
4 of the project for the road.
5 (d) (1) A person or class of persons may file a civil action to
6 enjoin a person or entity, including a state or local agency, that is
7 alleged to be violating this section.
8 (2) A civil action brought pursuant to paragraph (1) may be
9 brought in the superior court in the county in which the violation
10 occurs.
11 (3) Injunctive relief provided pursuant to this subdivision shall
12 not restrict any other right that a person or class of persons may
13 have under a statute or common law, including the right to seek
14 other legal remedies against the state or a local agency.
15 (e) As used in this section, the following terms have the
16 following meanings:
17 (1) "Local agency" means a county, general law or charter city,
18 town, school district, municipal corporation, district, joint powers
19 authority, political subdivision of the state, or a board, commission,
20 or agency thereof, or other local or regional public agency.
21 (2) "Road" means a highway, as defined in Section 360 of the
22 Vehicle Code, street, as defined in Section 590 of the Vehicle
23 Code, toll road or toll highway, as defined in Section 611 of the
24 Vehicle Code, or major thoroughfare.
25 (3) "State agency" includes a state department, division, bureau,
26 board, commission, or any other office within a state agency.
27 (4) "State park property" includes real property or an interest
28 in real property, that is owned, leased, or held under a conservation
29 easement by the department or otherwise under the jurisdiction or
30 control of the department.
31 SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
32 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
33 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
34 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
35 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
o
99
Analysis of AB 1457 (Huffman)
Arguments in Opposition
D R A F T
Summary of AB 1457:
AB 1457 fundamentally alters state law to prohibit virtually all road
or near
improvements in any part of the state park, recreational area or monument – including
parks, recreation areas and monuments leased by the state where the lessor reserved the right to
build roads in the leased area.
The only road improvements allowed by the bill are those “necessary” for (1) the use of the park,
(2) prevention of fires, or (3) construction and maintenance of utilities. Thus, AB 1457 will block
all road improvements to be funded by the recently enacted transportation bonds if the roads are
near any unit of the state park system. Dozens of transportation projects across the state are
potentially impacted by the bill.
AB 1457 Invalidates Contracts Between State Agencies and Landowners:
AB 1457 applies
to areas that are part of a state park unit where a landowner leased or granted a conservation
easement to the state. In many cases, the leases and easements reserved the right of the
landowner to approve roads. AB 1457 ignores these contractual agreements and prohibits road
improvements even where the land was included in the state park unit by an agreement with the
landowner that allows construction of roads.
AB 1457 Targets the Completion of a Regional Transportation System in Orange and San
Diego Counties – Even Though the State Entered Into A Lease With the Marine Corps
With the Explicit Understanding that Roads Could Be Permitted:
AB 1457 seeks to block the last 17-mile segment of the 68-mile toll road system in Orange
County. The last four miles of State Route 241 is proposed by local, state and federal agencies to
leased
be located on a portion of the U.S. Marine Corps Base at Camp Pendleton in an area by
2021
the U.S. Department of Navy to State Parks. The lease expires in . The U.S. Navy lease
always reserved to the Navy the right to approve a road through the leased land.
“This Lease is subject to . . . the right of the [Federal] government,
after consultation with Lessee [Dept. of Parks and Recreation], to
grant such additional easements and rights of way over, across, in
and upon the Lease Property [San Onofre State Park] as it shall
determine to be in the public interest; Provided, that any such
additional easement or right of way shall be located so as not to
unreasonably interfere with the use of the Lessee’s improvements
erected
on the Leased Property.”
1-
-
3/19/2007
OC\991120019
State Law Already Protects Parks and Recreation Areas:
CEQA already prohibits
construction of roads that have significant environmental impacts where there are feasible
alternatives. AB 1457 would effectively block any new road improvements in or near any state
or
park, recreational area or monument that “encroaches upon” “impairs the recreational value”
of the unit. The only road improvements allowed are those necessary for park purposes, to
prevent fires, or to maintain utilities.
AB 1457 Would Take the Transportation Planning Process Out of the Hands of Regional
Transportation Agencies and Local Government:
AB 1457 would conflict with existing state
law which places regional transportation planning decisions in the hand of local government and
regional transportation planning agencies.
2
- -
DRAFT
[Date]
The Honorable Jared Huffman
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0006
Subject: AB 1457
Dear Assemblymember Huffman:
As a member of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (F/ETCA) and/or
the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency (SJHTCA), the city of [Insert
Name] is writing to oppose AB 1457.
Since the early 1970s the City of [Insert Name] in cooperation with several other Orange
County cities, the County of Orange and the F/ETCA have jointly planned and
constructed infrastructure improvements to benefit the Orange County circulation system
and compliment the land uses within our communities. The San Joaquin Hills and
Foothill/Eastern Toll Roads are products of this balanced planning effort and have proven
to be highly beneficial in alleviating traffic congestion in Orange County.
In 1985, the F/ETCA began studying alignments for the last segment of the toll road
system, Foothill Transportation Corridor-South (FTC-S). Since the mid-1990s, the
F/ETCA, in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of
Engineers, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the United States Marine Corps and the California Department of Transportation
studied numerous alignment options. They worked together throughout the
environmental planning process to determine and recommend the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for the FTC-S. In February 2006, the
F/ETCA board of directors approved the recommended 16-mile alignment and certified
the project’s final Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The City of [Insert Name] opposes AB 1457 for the following reasons:
1.It fundamentally alters state law to prohibit virtually all road improvements in or
near any part of a state park, recreational area or monument, including parks,
recreation areas and monuments leased by the state where the lessor reserved the
right to build roads in the leased area.
The only road improvements allowed by the bill are those “necessary” for (1) the
use of the park, (2) prevention of fires, or (3) construction and maintenance of
utilities. Thus, AB 1457 will block all road improvements to be funded by the
recently enacted transportation bonds if the roads are near any unit of the state
park system. Dozens of transportation projects across the state are potentially
impacted by the bill.
AB 1457 Invalidates Contracts Between State Agencies and Landowners:
2.
AB 1457 applies to areas that are part of a state park unit where a landowner
leased or granted a conservation easement to the state. In many cases, the leases
and easements reserved the right of the landowner to approve roads. AB 1457
ignores these contractual agreements and prohibits road improvements even
where the land was included in the state park unit by an agreement with the
landowner that allows construction of roads.
AB 1457 Targets the Completion of a Regional Transportation System in
3.
Orange and San Diego Counties
– even though the state entered into a lease
with the Marine Corps with the explicit understanding that roads could be
permitted:
AB 1457 seeks to block the last 16-mile segment of the 67-mile toll road
system in Orange County. The last four miles of State Route 241 is
proposed by local, state and federal agencies to be located on a portion of
the U. S. Marine Corps Base at Camp Pendleton in an area leased by the
U.S. Department of the Navy to State Parks. The lease expires in 2021.
The U.S. Navy lease always reserved to the Navy the right to approve a
road through the leased land.
i.“This Lease is subject to . . . the right of the
[Federal] government, after consultation with
Lessee [Dept. of Parks and Recreation], to grant
such additional easements and rights of way over,
across, in and upon the Lease Property [San Onofre
State Park] as it shall determine to be in the public
interest; Provided, that any such additional
easement or right of way shall be located so as not
to unreasonably interfere with the use of the
Lessee’s improvements erected on the Leased
Property.”
State Law Already Protects Parks and Recreation Areas:
4.CEQA already
prohibits construction of roads that have significant environmental impacts where
there are feasible alternatives. AB 1457 would effectively block any new road
improvements in or near any state park, recreational area or monument that
or
“encroaches upon” “impairs the recreational value” of the unit. The only road
improvements allowed are those necessary for park purposes, to prevent fires, or
to maintain utilities.
AB 1457 Takes the Transportation Planning Process Out of the Hands of
5.
Regional Transportation Agencies and Local Government:
AB 1457 would
conflict with existing state law which places regional transportation planning
decisions in the hands of local government and regional transportation planning
agencies.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Title]
cc: The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee
Assembly Transportation Committee
AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Item
Reviewed:
City Manager
16
!1I/L
Finance Director N/A
MEETING DATE: MARCH 20,2007
FROM:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
LISA WOOLERY, COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: SB 670 (CORREA) REAL PROPERTY
TRANSFER FEES
TO:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY:
SB 670 will end transfer fees charged by developers when properties are sold.
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of the Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact to the City. Fiscal impact would directly impact
homeowners at the time they sell their property.
BACKGROUND:
The Legislative Counsel's Digest is as follows:
SB 670, as introduced, Correa. Real property: transfer fees. Existing law permits
various fees to be included in the price of a residential real estate transfer. Existing law
requires specified disclosures to be made upon a transfer of residential real property
and provides a form for this purpose. Existing law provides that conditions restraining
transfer of property, also referred to as alienation, when repugnant to the interest
created in the property, are void.
This bill would provide that any a covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any
deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of
real property that contains a requirement that any transferee pay a fee upon transfer of
the real property is a condition restraining alienation that is repugnant to the interest
created and void. The bill would except from this definition taxes and fees imposed by
governmental entities, mechanics' liens, fees imposed by lenders, and homeowner
association processing fees, among others. The bill would also make a related
statement of legislative findings.
Page 2
STATUS:
A hearing is on this bill is scheduled on April 17 for the Senate Transportation and
Housing Committee.
BILL NUMBER: SB 670 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Senator Correa
FEBRUARY 23, 2007
An act to amend Section 711 of the Civil Code, relating to real
property.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 670, as introduced, Correa. Real property: transfer fees.
Existing law permits various fees to be included in the price of a
residential real estate transfer. Existing law requires specified
disclosures to be made upon a transfer of residential real property
and provides a form for this purpose. Existing law provides that
conditions restraining transfer of property, also referred to as
alienation, when repugnant to the interest created in the property,
are void.
This bill would provide that any a covenant, restriction, or
condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or
other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of real property that
contains a requirement that any transferee pay a fee upon transfer
of the real property is a condition restraining alienation that is
repugnant to the interest created and void. The bill would except
from this definition taxes and fees imposed by governmental entities,
mechanics' liens, fees imposed by lenders, and homeowner association
processing fees, among others. The bill would also make a related
statement of legislative findings.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(a) Transfer fees based on a percentage of the sales price of a
home are increasingly being imposed by developers on home buyers.
Often, the imposition of these fees is used to settle disputes
between builders and parties who are opposed to a development or, in
the alternative, by builders to avoid proactively a lawsuit by these
opponents or to smooth development negotiations with the local
government. Typically, in return for an agreement by the opponents to
the development to not pursue a lawsuit based on one of the state's
environmental protection acts, the builder agrees to the imposition
of one or more fees through a covenant that remains in effect through
each sale of a home.
(b) Fees totaling 1.75 percent of a home's sales price have been
seen; however, there is no upper limit on the percentage of a home's
sales price at which a transfer fee can be established.
.(c) Purchasing a home is increasingly beyond the reach of many
Californians and these fees make housing even less affordable. Today,
less than a quarter of all first-time home buyers can afford a
median priced home in California.
(d) These transfer fees can be imposed for an unlimited period.
Generally, the duration of these transfer fees ranges from 20 to 25
years, however many fees are imposed in perpetuity. Consequently,
future generations will be saddled with paying fees established
decades earlier by developers.
(e) The funds generated by these transfer fees can be used to pay
for projects that do not directly benefit the development or the
immediately surrounding community. As a result, the homeowners that
pay these fees do not receive any benefit whatsoever in return.
(f) The number of transfer fees that can be imposed is unlimited.
Multiple fees have been imposed by developers on each home in a
development with each fee funding a different purported benefit.
Future homeowners will be required to pay these fees without any say
as to whether the recipients of the funds should continue to benefit
from this revenue source.
(g) The requirements for disclosing the existence of a transfer
fee are limited. In addition, the requirement for payment of the fee.
can be masked by it not applying to the first buyer but only to
subsequent buyers. Consequently, many home buyers may be surprised to
learn of the additional thousands of dollars that they will be
required to pay upon the close of escrow.
(h) The organizations or developers that receive the transfer fee
funds are not required to account to any independent oversight
entity. Therefore, the public has no assurances that these
organizations will work to achieve the goals with which they have
been entrusted.
(i) The transfer fees threaten a number of established public
policies, namely:
(1) The prohibition on the restraint of alienation. The fees will
make it more difficult for homeowners to sell their homes because
home buyers will likely balk at paying the fees.
Page 3
Page 4
(2) The taxing and spending authority reserved to local
governments. The imposition of these fees by developers arguably
usurps functions that properly belong exclusively to local
government. Moreover, no public vote is required to impose or extend
the fee.
U) Based on the foregoing, The Legislature finds that the
imposition of transfer fees shall be prohibited.
SEC. 2. Section 711 of the Civil Code is amended to read:
711. (a) Conditions restraining alienation,
when repugnant to the interest created, are void.
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a condition restraining
alienation that is repugnant to the interest created includes, but
is not limited to, a covenant, restriction, or condition contained in
any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument
affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, real property
that contains a requirement that any transferee pay a fee upon
transfer of the real property.
(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to any of the following:
(1) Fees or taxes imposed by a governmental entity.
(2) Mechanics' liens.
(3) Court ordered transfers, payments, or judgments.
(4) Property agreements in connection with a dissolution of
marriage.
(5) Fees, charges, or payments imposed by lenders or purchasers of
loans, as these entities are described in subdivision (c) of Section
1 0232 of the Business and Professions Code.
(6) Homeowner association processing fees as provided in Section
1368.
Orange County Register
Steven Greenhunt Commentary
March 12, 2007
FREEDOM AT ISSUE
A stealth tax on homeowners
Right now, if you buy a house in California's inflated real estate market, you might find a
shocking surprise at closing, beyond the normal amount of cash you have to come up
with to get into that $800,000 fixerupper. You can be hit with a private transfer "tax" that
can amount to thousands of dollars. There's nothing you can do about it that late in the
game, other than pony up a few more grand to get into the house.
Page 5
We're all used to the government dinging us at every opportunity, especially on the
purchase of any major item. Buyers already pay government fees when they buy or sell
a house, and then there's ,the ongoing expense of paying those real estate taxes.
Somebody, after all, has to pay for all those ill-functioning bureaucracies.
What's odd about the transfer tax - ranging from 0.05 percent to 1.75 percent of the
purchase price of the house, with the most typical rate being 1 percent - is that this time
the government isn't doing it. The homebuilder is playing Tax Man here, and the
homebuilder often reaps the rewards while sticking it to the homebuyer in a sneaky way.
"We look upon it that, if you're fortunate enough to buy a home, it's an opportunity to
help someone less fortunate," a Lennar Corp. official told the San Diego Union-Tribune
in a 2005 article about a tax Lennar imposes on buyers to fund a homeless charity.
The tone of the article was positive: Look at the good deeds Lennar is doing! But the
buyer, not only Lennar, is the one paying the charity. Here Lennar is acting the way the
government acts. The government takes the money from you to fund some worthy-
sounding program, and the government takes the credit for being so "caring." Then the
government lectures the public on the importance of helping the poor.
A Lennar official told me Lennar fully discloses the fee upfront, that it's a tiny percentage
of the sales price, the company gets no benefit and that there are tight restrictions on
how the money is used. That may be so with this one Lennar tax, but it isn't true for
every builder's transfer tax.
This type of tax is tied to the deed, and generally lasts forever. There are no disclosure
rules, so no one has to tell the buyer about the added costs at sales time. There's no
oversight of this continuing revenue stream to make sure it really goes to the promised
use. The transfer tax technically is pri- vate, but it functions, in some ways, even worse
than a government tax in that there are no requirements for a vote of the people, as
required under Proposition 218 for traditional government taxes. Builders simply tack on
whatever costs they choose to homebuyers, now and in the future, in the form of an
add-on at closing.
State Sen. Lou Correa, D-Anaheim, has introduced Senate Bill 670 to outlaw the
practice. Republicans, who hate tax increases, and Democrats, who often complain
about corporate profiteering and a lack of affordable housing, ought to quickly make this
tax disappear.
The builders insist that they should have the right to negotiate with buyers over the
terms and conditions of a property's sale. If a buyer agrees to pay a transfer fee, then
that is a private transaction. But the builders impose this fee without any disclosure until
the final closing documents are produced. How is that a free negotiation? It's doubtful
that a buyer could even opt out of the sale once he learns about the tax. By that point,
he already has signed a binding sales contract and has placed a good bit of cash down.
Page 6
The builders now say they will support legislation mandating full disclosure of the tax if
Correa backs away from his bill. But such taxes still are questionable given that they
encumber the property in the future. New buyers - who knew nothing about it - are
stuck paying the price.
"Twenty to 30 years from now, if this thing is allowed to proliferate, all properties will
have such taxes," said Alex Creel, chief lobbyist for the California Association of
Realtors, which is backing the Correa bill. "Why would you not impose all your front-end
costs on the buyer?" Builders say this is a private transaction, he explained, and buyers
have a choice not to enter into it. But what's your choice at that point? He envisions
multiple layers of taxes and encumbrances years down the road.
This relatively new tax (no one is sure who started it) is a bit similar to Mello-Roos fees,
which are paid monthly by homeowners in special districts to fund neighborhood
infrastructure. Such districts were designed to get around restrictions on government
taxation. They impose far higher fees than transfer taxes, but they are governed by a
clear-cut set of rules and restrictions, which no doubt explains why the builders prefer
the stealth method.
Readers of my column know that I zealously support the rights of homebuilders. I
defend them against the attacks by NIMBYs who don't want anything built near them,
government planners who prefer taxgenerating big-box stores rather than new
neighborhoods, public school and public safety officials who view every new
neighborhood as a chance to fund their budgets well beyond any impact the new
neighborhood has on these services, and environmentalists who demand that builders
build fewer houses and set aside more open space.
I've been to planning commission and city council meetings where approvals for new
home developments fit H.L. Mencken's description of an election: an advance auction of
stolen goods. Everyone demands a piece of what the government will take from the
developer in exchange for granting an approval to build something on the site.
Typically, though, developers have every incentive to fight these demands because they
will have to pay for them. With private transfer taxes, though, builders can agree to
every sort of demand, no matter how dubious, and pass the costs on to consumers at
the closing table. Builders are using the taxes to pay for their "affordable housing"
mandates, to build hiking trails and even to fund a foundation to promote "family farming
and ranching."
The building industry's anti-SB670 fact sheet admits that these taxes transfer
development costs to buyers: "It's a private sector solution to meet the conditions often
placed on local development approvals." The builders argue that the Correa bill would
result in "a MASSIVE NEW COST INCREASE onto new homebuyers." This is a stretch.
Builders charge the most they possibly can get for a house. There's nothing wrong with
that. If a house can fetch $1 million on the open market, that's what a builder will
Page 7
charge, regardless of whether it cost him $900,000 to build or $200,000 to build. He
can't suddenly charge more than the market will bear because he agreed to fund an
American Indian monument at the behest of a local tribe.
Which is what this is all about. Builders want more money to pay for things they are
coerced to include in their projects. It's easier to buy off the opposition than to fight it.
They know they can't always hike the price to reflect these costs, so they want to quietly
offload the costs onto present and future buyers through a clever type of tax.
It's time to nip this one in the bud.
CONTACT THE WRITER:
sg ree n h ut@ocreg iste r. co m
or 714 796-7823
STEVEN GREENHUT
SENIOR EDITORIAL WRITER AND COLUMNIST FOR THE REGISTER
Lisa Woolery
Communications Manager