Donald Trump Rally in Colorado Springs

seventyfive

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2010
4,015
1
over there
Developers are forced to pay for many of those roads, modifications to existing roads, exits, intersections, and improvements. The states commonly have less to do with it than you think.

This is a cold, hard fact. I see it damned near once a month.

Cheers,

Kennith
kennith, ive been looking into this for a while now. local government picks up the tab. the rule is "we build the homes, people move there and pay you taxes, then you can use that tax revenue to build better roads". at least in Maryland.
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
5,311
4
High Point, NC
Ask Dan, Garrett, or a couple of the other guys, that have known me for about 20 years, about how i used to go on and on about one day the government will be forcing us to put creamed corn in our fuel tanks to subsidize grain farmers in the fly over states. doesn't matter if it's big corn, big oil, or big solar...the corporations are pulling the strings.

who benefited from the government forcing creamed corn in our fuel tanks?

i was right then and im right about pot holes.
Our wonderful Government subsidized E85. No way it would be at stations now if it weren't for that. BILLIONS Spent.

"Originally sold as a way to achieve energy independence and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, ethanol has been a favorite of many lawmakers: ethanol producers have received favorable treatment under the tax code, tariff protection from foreign competition, and even a government mandate for its use.

As a result, taxpayers have spent billions of dollars over the last 30 years subsidizing the production of corn ethanol, while at the same time creating unintended costs for consumers and the environment."

And you're wondering why the FEDS aren't fixing Maryland's potholes fast enough? LOL C'mon Mike. Let's raise our federal gas tax (NC has one of the highest already) so we can subsidize some more worthless E85? Again, look to the states who do it right. At the end of the day if NC raises the gas tax again but our roads are better I'm good with it. If they don't easy to kick them to the curb and elect someone new. Now, if the FEDS increase their tax do you really have confidence all of a sudden Maryland's pot holes will disappear? If not, that senior congressman or senator who hasn't been seen in their home state for 2 years will be ousted? No way jose. Keep the roads and bridges local. All I'm saying.

 
Last edited:

Blue

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2004
8,451
12
AZ
Research MTBE, the brilliant oxygenate idea before Ethanol!

I'm working on an anlytical result table for soil vapor samples right now and I have MTBE and dozens of other chemicals staring me in the face.
 

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
9,570
14
North Carolina
kennith, ive been looking into this for a while now. local government picks up the tab. the rule is "we build the homes, people move there and pay you taxes, then you can use that tax revenue to build better roads". at least in Maryland.
Perhaps in Maryland. The only times I've been there were driving through. Well, I think I went to a computer show once. I should probably spend some time there and see if anything cool is around.

In many other states, however, it's a different story. City, state, or county; it's the guys developing the areas that get cut deep. They lose the land and pay for the privilege, build the infrastructure, and then are taxed on top of that. There are tertiary benefits, and they may have built a road anyway to seed migration, but not THAT road. o_O

Intersections, sidewalks, power, water, sewer... You name it. The guys people love to hate are the guys that prevented those people from having to pay for it indirectly with their own contributions, and the cities, counties, and states have the audacity to behave as if they had anything to do with making it happen.

This is just the way things are, though. It's been done like this for a very long time, and people are used to it. It just stings that no credit is given and they're made out to be the bad guys.

Hell, you've got to bring in the people to make it happen yourself half the time. :ROFLMAO: They can't even be bothered to make the arrangements. It's beyond annoying; especially when they demand the infrastructure and then turn around and make you pay to offset bullshit, imagined environmental issues just to keep all the screamers happy and deflect attention directed at the real problems.

That's saying something coming from me, I assure you.

56120

Cheers,

Kennith
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Callsign: KN4KFS
Dec 6, 2006
5,664
2
Bristol, TN
Perhaps in Maryland. The only times I've been there were driving through. Well, I think I went to a computer show once. I should probably spend some time there and see if anything cool is around.

In many other states, however, it's a different story. City, state, or county; it's the guys developing the areas that get cut deep. They lose the land and pay for the privilege, build the infrastructure, and then are taxed on top of that. There are tertiary benefits, and they may have built a road anyway to seed migration, but not THAT road. o_O

Intersections, sidewalks, power, water, sewer... You name it. The guys people love to hate are the guys that prevented those people from having to pay for it indirectly with their own contributions, and the cities, counties, and states have the audacity to behave as if they had anything to do with making it happen.
So a developer who is turning a piece of pasture land into a subdivision SHOULDN'T build the roads, sewers, etc? WTF?

Unless a development is being built where the infrastructure (roads, sewer, utilities, etc.) is going to be maintained by an HOA (or other private entity), they HAVE to be built to the localities standards, which are usually much more stringent than what a developer wants to do - which is slap some asphalt down and call it a day (no underlying support, no sidewalks, no gutters).

In their opinion: Why should they build something that is going to last more than 5 years? They'll have sold all the houses and moved on. Just build a shitty road and let the future owners/city deal with it later.
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
5,311
4
High Point, NC
usually much more stringent than what a developer wants to do - which is slap some asphalt down and call it a day (no underlying support, no sidewalks, no gutters).
There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin. Usually developers sell the full package. Sidewalks, kid friendly, maintained ponds and more. They even have developers adding Shopping areas now. I mean, you actually want to sell your lots, right? The entire time the city was up their asses with inspections and even driving by to make sure everything was up to code.

I know in our neighborhood the developer had an agreement with the city to take over after a certain % was sold and inhabited. After that the bonds kicked in. Just got all new LED street lighting. Tax money working for us with reliable Green Technology. Love it.
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
5,311
4
High Point, NC
Of course you don't cite the "bullshit ones," just use a generic claim.

As for the E85 - you can use that in your Rover? Go try it out and let us know what kind of gas mileage you get.
A quick search raveled just how great Wind Energy turned out for MN. For those who are enamored with how great Government is I can see why this principal of Failed Green Tech (cost FAR outweighs any benefit) and special interest involvement is hard to swallow.

I was being sarcastic with the E85 remark, but that is one example.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Callsign: KN4KFS
Dec 6, 2006
5,664
2
Bristol, TN
There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin. Usually developers sell the full package. Sidewalks, kid friendly, maintained ponds and more. They even have developers adding Shopping areas now. I mean, you actually want to sell your lots, right? The entire time the city was up their asses with inspections and even driving by to make sure everything was up to code.
All depends on the developer and the development. Example: https://ggwash.org/view/37058/ask-ggw-is-there-any-reason-not-to-have-sidewalk

I know in our neighborhood the developer had an agreement with the city to take over after a certain % was sold and inhabited. After that the bonds kicked in. Just got all new LED street lighting. Tax money working for us with reliable Green Technology. Love it.
Yeah, and that developer had to meet certain standards, yes?

I guess requiring LED street lights is one of those NON-bullshit requirements, huh?
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
5,311
4
High Point, NC
https://ggwash.org/view/37058/ask-ggw-is-there-any-reason-not-to-have-sidewalk
So it's not commonplace, especially if you actaully want to sell your homes. :rolleyes:

Yeah, and that developer had to meet certain standards, yes?
Building standards yes.

I guess requiring LED street lights is one of those NON-bullshit requirements, huh?
Are you stupid?
 

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
9,570
14
North Carolina
I can tell you from experience - if a developer doesn't have to put in sidewalks and storm drains - they won't.
Fuck it.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, as usual.

I turn off ignore so I can follow this nonsense, and immediately I'm faced with some of the stupidest shit I've ever read.

You need to find a way to be paid for being perpetually incorrect. You'd be a billionaire overnight.

Cheers,

Kennith