The complete failure of Lurie's tax cuts for developers on full display at hearing - 48 hills

"Menard, a principal analyst at the Budget and Legislative Analyst's Office, presented a report showing that the lack of new market-rate housing had very little to do with the city's affordable housing requirements or impact fees."

"Impact fees exist for a reason: When you build a new office or housing project, the additional residents and workers require more Muni service, new schools and parks, more water and sewer service, more cops and firefighters, more traffic mitigation-and, if you build housing for rich people, more affordable housing for the baristas, the drivers, the child-care workers, the house cleaners, and the other lower-wage workers who will be needed to serve the rich."

"Lurie has insisted that cutting fees will encourage more business, across the board, and that housing developers will build more if the city stops charging them for the impacts they create."

"Menard told the Budget and Appropriations Committee that "there is not an immediate and observable impact of [fee and affordability cuts] on building permit activity.""

A hearing reviewed a Budget and Legislative Analysts report showing that developer “incentives” have done little to address the housing crisis. The report found that the lack of new market-rate housing had very little to do with affordable housing requirements or impact fees. Impact fees are described as necessary to fund additional public services created by new development, including transit, schools, parks, water and sewer, and public safety. Cutting fees and removing affordable housing requirements is said to worsen budget problems and fail to solve affordability. A principal analyst stated there is no immediate and observable impact of fee and affordability cuts on building permit activity. The feasibility gap between building costs and market prices remains large, and fee cuts are portrayed as reducing city revenue without closing that gap.

Read at 48 hills