Property taxation should be levied in an equitable and broad-based fashion. All citizens have the opportunity to benefit equally from general public services. Property taxes should also be levied equitably across as broad a population of citizens as possible.

More and more frequently, we are seeing local officials levy narrow and punitive impact fees, which dramatically impact small subsets of citizens who are being punished for their desire to construct a new home or business.

The primary reason officials like these fees is because approving narrow-based "fees" are politically preferable to levying broad-based "taxes." In other words, officials are choosing to dramatically impact the finances of a small set of property owners (those who find value in new construction (vs. existing structures) because they prefer not to cut spending or do not want to raise taxes across a broader population to fund general public services.

A young family with a child with asthma should not be forced to pay $30,000-40,000 more in fees than a family purchasing an older home, simply because they choose to live in a newly-constructed home. Similarly, a senior couple downsizing to a new condominium after years of living in larger home which required a lot of maintenance should not be forced to pay $15,000-20,000 in additional property taxes because they prefer new construction with lower maintenance.

Impact fees assessed to new construction are passed along to the future home buyers who may or may not be aware of this unfair method of taxation. The short-term cost of impact fees prevents some citizens from buying homes who could afford to purchase were it not for the additional cost of these hefty fees. The long-term cost of impact fees (once financed in a 30-year traditional mortgage) restricts the long-term economic opportunity of citizens who could have paid off their home more quickly. Impact fees in a 30-year mortgage could actually result in more dollars being earned in interest by banking institutions than actually flow to the municipality assessing the fee to begin with.

Impact fees assessed on commercial properties can have an extremely punitive affect on small business owners who may not be able to afford to build or expand their businesses due to the exorbitant impact fees.

For example, why should a business converting a high-volume restaurant building on a six-lane highway be expected to pay $130,000 in "transportation impact fees" simply because they are remodeling and engaging in construction on the site to suit this new use. Wouldn't that $130,000 better serve the economy if the business retains these dollars to aid its start-up?