[AnthonyMouse]

> One development of 5 houses might not move the needle on that, but it then opens the door to neighbors doing the same thing, which could very much require major investment in infrastructure for the area.

But then there is a corresponding increase in property tax revenues to pay for it, so this should require no approval and just be something that happens. The city pays for the new infrastructure from the taxes paid by the new people using it.

[8note]

> But then there is a corresponding increase in property tax revenues to pay for it, so this should require no approval and just be something that happens. The city pays for the new infrastructure from the taxes paid by the new people using it.

This is a conjecture that as far as I know does not match what actually happens, which is that the new infrastructure is paid by debt, and the 4 new taxpayers will not have paid off the debt before the infrastructure needs replacement, paid for by more debt.

If it was 600 new units rather than 4, maybe it works out that the corresponding taxes pay for the infrastructure, but property taxes just aren't high enough, and the people who live in these boondoggle houses aren't wealthy enough to pay the taxes for the infrastructure their houses need

[AnthonyMouse]

> This is a conjecture that as far as I know does not match what actually happens, which is that the new infrastructure is paid by debt, and the 4 new taxpayers will not have paid off the debt before the infrastructure needs replacement, paid for by more debt.

If four taxpayers aren't paying the amount of taxes required to fund the infrastructure needed by four taxpayers then your city is already bankrupt and zoning and planning is irrelevant.

> If it was 600 new units rather than 4

If it was literally only 4 units then you shouldn't need any new infrastructure anyway. Nothing should be operating with margins that thin to begin with.

If it's 4 units here, 4 units there then it adds up to hundreds which is the thing you admit isn't a problem.

[_DeadFred_]

So the city has to build a new $50 million dollar sewage treatment plant in the hopes of getting that paid back over 50 years of property taxes, and gets no say in the matter or the cities budget? Sewage treatment plants have finite capacity, can't be built on a 'serves 20 units' incremental scale, and oftentimes new plants have much stricter requirements than grandfathered in one. Not everywhere is the bay area where they can scale up by just piping it out a few miles into the ocean and call it good.

[toast0]

> Not everywhere is the bay area where they can scale up by just piping it out a few miles into the ocean and call it good.

At least in the San Jose area, the sewage treatment was largely built 50 years ago, when it was doing a lot of agriculture, and flows are way lower with people than they were with food processing and other industrial processing. The new plant that's in progress needs and has way less capacity, even though the standards are much much much tighter.

At the one house per acre level though, you can likely manage with septic, which is incremental sewage treatment capacity, and not a huge municipal undertaking (there is record keeping and regulation and what not, so it's not nothing)

[AnthonyMouse]

> So the city has to build a new $50 million dollar sewage treatment plant in the hopes of getting that paid back over 50 years of property taxes, and gets no say in the matter or the cities budget?

Precisely.

> Sewage treatment plants have finite capacity, can't be built on a 'serves 20 units' incremental scale

Nor would they need to be. If your sewage treatment plant has a capacity for 100,000 units and you have 99,981 existing units, you already need a new sewage treatment plant regardless of where you put the new units, unless your plan is to never approve any new construction anywhere in the city, which is manifestly unreasonable.

> and oftentimes new plants have much stricter requirements than grandfathered in one.

And whose doing is that?