Have nots?
The NP published yet another 'tid bit' today, discussing a handful of properties exempted from the sewer portion of the UEP. One resident, apparently outraged, created a poll on the NP forums, asking if we felt it was 'fair'.
1.5 acre single family home lots, valued at $500,000.00 each. Three times the state minimum size for lots to use permanent septic. A total of 12 lots, in a single subdivision. Oh the horror.
Now imagine if sewer had been run to those 12 lots, using the methodology which existed when the SE-1 extension took place. They would have been billed for the first 200 square feet at the same rate as everyone else, and then they would have had to only pay 30% for the remainder of their square footage. Net result? The UEP would have been more expensive than it was, for all of the residents in the UEP.
Once again, the city acted in our best interest, and excluded a small number of properties that would have disproportionately benefited from a sewer extension, at everyone else's expense.
No, it wasn't 'fair' according to the rules at the time, those land owners didn't get the 'better deal' that they would have received. They now are forced to pay betterment fees, in addition to any and all costs to add sewer to their properties, should they choose to do so.
1.5 acre single family home lots, valued at $500,000.00 each. Three times the state minimum size for lots to use permanent septic. A total of 12 lots, in a single subdivision. Oh the horror.
Now imagine if sewer had been run to those 12 lots, using the methodology which existed when the SE-1 extension took place. They would have been billed for the first 200 square feet at the same rate as everyone else, and then they would have had to only pay 30% for the remainder of their square footage. Net result? The UEP would have been more expensive than it was, for all of the residents in the UEP.
Once again, the city acted in our best interest, and excluded a small number of properties that would have disproportionately benefited from a sewer extension, at everyone else's expense.
No, it wasn't 'fair' according to the rules at the time, those land owners didn't get the 'better deal' that they would have received. They now are forced to pay betterment fees, in addition to any and all costs to add sewer to their properties, should they choose to do so.
posted by Lloyd at 4:53 PM
Subscribe Here.
1 Comments:
It is further interesting to find out that only 1 lot within the Woodlands development is not yet developed. So for anyone to suggest that this could become an issue if the developer divided the lots into smaller lots, is well, just insane. That would be way to much trouble and if I'm reading the information correctly would then lead to the other already developed lots to then need sewer as they would be within 200 feet (one at a time). Since the divided lot would then have homes on smaller lots those smaller lots woud need sewer. I hope that last part makes sense. Then there's the issue that there are oodles of smaller lots available around Cape Coral, so it wouldn't be prudent for the developer to divide that lot. He stands to do better by offering an estate sized lot.
Post a Comment
<< Home