Can suburbs sustainably opt for high taxes instead of suburban infill?


This is a challenge for me to consider. I was speaking with a member on the team in Community Development for my city. I was mentioning the issue of huge hikes in property tax if the city doesn't consider suburban infill projects. A simple response from the manager is that people in the city are happy with the way things are. They're affluent and willing to pay for those taxes, so no change is necessary.

This floored me. My whole position on suburban infill is that high taxes effectively kill suburbs. Only, if the people living in a suburb are affluent enough, they can opt to eat the impact fees for utilities and roads, thus, by definition they are sustainable because the city can handle the tax increase in the long term.

Does anyone have an answer to this? Are there cases where a city, formerly an affluent suburb, refused to change their development codes and it bit them later?



Please sign in to leave a comment.