Mecklenburg Storm Water Services has proposed increasing the stormwater fee for most homeowners next fiscal year and shifting more of the burden to the largest homes. The smallest homes would see a slight decrease.
Charlotte homeowners with more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces would see their annual fee increase from about $96 to more than $200.
Stormwater officials released this illustrated memo explaining their rationale - and the proposed fee hikes.
Click here to see the memo.
Read the story: Double storm water fees? Some homeowners say it's unfair
Some local elected officials, as they examine budget proposals this month, are questioning the proposed fee increase. - Christopher D. Kirkpatrick
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
What that pretty picture is missing is the fact that the big house pays 4-5 times more in property taxes.
More appropriate headline -
"Soaking the Rich"
Problems in my neighborhood are a direct result of the local government approving nearby housing development without regard for water runoff. None of us have large homes with excessive drive/walk ways, but we all have seen growing water problems since major housing projects have been approved and built nearby within the last five years.
So, if you have a 1200 s.f. house packed into every square inch of a .15 acre lot, you pay much less in stormwater fees than a 4000 s.f. house on .5 acre. Denser housing contributes to more runoff. Bigger houses just have bigger pockets the government can dig in to.
where are the folks--center cit parners--that told us density was what we wanted uptown? It didn't flood before...just wait until parking becomes ridiculous for residents....that's the next "flood!"
Hope the towers get to pay for their fair share of non-green space!
Basing the tiers on a flat square-footage number without regard to the overall acreage of the property does not make sense. Whether the increased fee is assessed should be based upon the ratio of impervious area to pervious area within the lot--if one increases that ratio above a baseline ratio by constructing more impervious surface, then one should be assessed an increased fee. As the comment above mentions, one could pack a house, driveway, patio and shed on a tiny lot and still fall under the square-footage limit, but that owner has eliminated nearly all of the pervious surface on the lot. Meanwhile, one builds a 5,000 sf house on an acre and still maintains a large lawn or landscaped areas. The ratio of that owner's impervious surface to pervious surface is much lower.
Vote them out. This is unfair. I will sell my 8 acres to a developer who will fill it with low end housing, thereby increasing runoff and further deteriorating the neighborhood. And then I will move somewhere where they think about the residents, and not the dollar.
Post a Comment