New growth must pay for itself

Thank you for your timely editorial of April 4 regarding the growth that has been taking place in Aiken for the past several years. When Jane Vaughters and I were first elected to Aiken City Council in 2001 we described the growth taking place as "unbridled" and persuaded City Council to review the Comprehensive Land Use and Transportation Plan and to make it more than "just a guideline." Unfortunately it took almost three years to finish the review and there is no doubt in my mind that the delay can be traced to development oriented members of the Planning Commission who stretched it out as long as possible.

Our second goal was a "Traffic Management Ordinance with some teeth in it" and this also experienced considerable delay. When it finally came to Council the proposed ordinance included impact fees to cover the cost of the infrastructure needed to support new developments. Ronnie Bolton, a major development realtor and former long-time chairman of the Aiken City Planning Commission took but a few minutes to convince a majority of Council that impact fees would seriously hinder economic growth, and the ordinance was tabled.

It took another year for the ordinance to be revised. Unbelievably the chairman of the Planning Commission proposed to have Ronnie Bolton head up a committee to do the revisions. When Jane Vaughters and I objected to this travesty a joint committee of Council, Planning Commission and Chamber of Commerce representatives was appointed. This maneuver was nothing but a fig leaf since a clear majority of the committee representatives were known development advocates. The impact fee was removed and the Committee further weakened the ordinance by severely reducing the area to be covered by the required traffic study.

Jane Vaughters and I reluctantly accepted the compromises in order to get an ordinance and it has been somewhat helpful, but in reality there have been no serious attempts to manage the traffic results of growth, or to ensure that growth paid for the new infrastructure so urgently needed to support it.

The majority of City Council members believes "if we don't grow we die."

They argue that millage rates have gone down over the last 15 years because of the growth they have fostered. Because of this mind-set they are reluctant to deny or reduce the scope of any project. On the other hand citizens are painfully aware that their property taxes continue to rise as do water /sewage rates and service fees. School and county millage rates have also increased.

The Clemson University website features a study on the cost of growth by Professor Dr. Bill Ward who cites several studies which quantify the community cost for new development, including transportation, schools, water, sewer, electricity. A Lincoln, Neb., study concluded that a new home imposes a fiscal impact to that city of $17,400, and a Washington state conference paper placed the total cost of one home to all governmental jurisdictions at $83,000!

While these costs seem astonishing, let us not forget the recent increase in Aiken County tax rates; projects under way to improve Whiskey, Dougherty, Silver Bluff and other roads; proposed connector roads in the Anderson Pond and Powderhouse road areas; school tax increases and talk of alternative finance methods to boost funds available for school construction; increased water rates to replace reserves used to expand pipelines and pumping stations "for future growth;" increased property taxes due to higher assessments; and more.

As both the new and existing residents share these costs, existing residents experience the double whammy of increased taxes, with simultaneous diminishment of their quality of life.

Professor Ward posits that costs go up, rather than down, with growth. Cheapest sources and most cost efficient solutions are used first. As population increases, the lowest cost solutions are used up and higher cost resources must be used. Also, construction of roads and utilities is more expensive in congested areas than wide-open spaces. Ward cites a study of urban tax burdens that "shows that for every 1 percent increase in city size, tax rates go up by 0.41 percent." For more information on growth and other local issues go to www.aikenjournal.com .

Most of the new growth in the greater Aiken area will be in the county, but large developments contiguous to incorporated areas requiring water and sewer will request annexation to the City. The County and the City must work closely together and become proactive in managing growth issues to derive maximum benefit while preserving the quality of life we enjoy.

We must complete the overlay district for Whiskey Road and extend the coverage to all major corridors. Similar to what happened on the City Planning Commission with the Traffic Management Ordinance, development oriented members of the County Planning Commission have stalled action to finalize the overlay agreement between County and City. In another planning delay the City has put off the preparation of a Comprehensive Land Use and Transportation plan for the area north of Aiken hoping that the County would join in the planning. This has not happened and the City may have to proceed on its own. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

There will be a great increase in traffic on the north and west sides with the advent of Trolley Run Station on University Parkway and the new super Wal-Mart Center on Richland Avenue. Other projects are on the way. Good planning is essential. The City estimates greater Aiken will need $66 million for necessary road improvements in the next seven to 10 years. We are also facing millions in costs for additional water and sewer infrastructure.

Governor Sanford is seeking to make the enactment of impact fees easier for municipalities but even under current South Carolina law there is much the County and City can do.

Without impact fees and major help (unlikely) from federal and state sources, funds to do the necessary infrastructure improvements in a timely way will not be available unless more taxes are imposed on current residents. County and City officials must jointly adopt impact fees to ensure that new developments pay the additional infrastructure costs. Growth must pay for growth!