|
Post by SpellChecker on Jun 13, 2014 11:17:38 GMT -5
AlexO, Your response, I believe, was the same thing Spellchecker had said. And from MY recollections, the Developer DID make the Statement that they had been Approached by a Representative of TIF. So you both said the same thing, in different ways. I understanding what your saying Venter but as stated earlier Pa really doesn't have TIF Representative per say, but a board that reviews the paperwork to see if everything is good. A TIF Representative to me is somebody like the Adams County Economic Development group who is issuing the board or from someone from a group that is coming to the next meeting. When the Developer said someone from the state, I thought of one of Moul/Tallman or Alloway or another elected official from Harrisburg. They are not a TIF Representative but Official State Representatives. Thank you for proving my point....while you may have taken it one way myself and im sure others took it another. It was certainly worded that way. Kind of like when ravens girl made the statement that a TIF rep would be at this meeting. It may have been mistake but it was a misleading mistake. Im fairly confident that when most people asked for a TIF rep they didnt mean someone hired by the developer. I understand that isnt possible now with Ravenna girls explaination but that would have been something I could have listened to. as I said the guy they are brining in might know his stuff but in the end its a dog and pony show. Hes not going to tell you any more than what you've already heard. Its not his job to give you the down side if there is one. im pro growth and Im all for responsible expansion I just dont see this going the way he claims it will.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Jun 18, 2014 9:37:27 GMT -5
The answer is that the taxpayers are not on the hook. So what does happen if the developer does not meet the sales goals? What if a 55+ community does not sell as well as a non-age restrictive community? Will not the bond holders be entitled to ask that the age restrictions on the un-built lots be lifted? The clubhouse certainly would be foreclosed upon. What about the people who buy those first houses thinking that the promise of $40 million in improvements are coming to their neighborhood? Will all $40 million in bonds be issued? Who would buy those later bonds when the first bonds did not pan out? Again, maybe this is not the problem of the collective taxpayers, but certainly the folks who buy the houses in this development are entitled to some protection from being promised things that may not ever happen. My personal thought is that I don't care what happens to the buyers if the taxpayer isn't on the hook. It's not that I want to see people get taken, but that I don't care so much. That leaves only one concern, and that is that the group will use more in county services than they'll pay in taxes (because of the TIF payment) and leave a burden on other people. i'm still puzzled why the schools wouldn't be all for it, unless it has to do with wanting to have more students for the purpose of federal allocations. (FTR, I have no confidence that they could sell 200 units a year, but that's just my personal guess. A few relatives of mine thought a while ago that they'd attract this mystical group of "people from somewhere else" with the lure of a lower cost area than DC or baltimore, but they still have the land and no customers. In 5 years, there was one bite from one buyer, and that person backed out. )
|
|
|
Post by Fire Marshal Bill on Jun 25, 2014 15:42:58 GMT -5
I always agreed that 250 homes a year was rather optimistic, but if Maryland passes the proposed law that will make individuals pay a tax on every mile they drive their vehicle, that number of new homes needed in could reach 250 a year soon.
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Jun 28, 2014 20:54:38 GMT -5
I always agreed that 250 homes a year was rather optimistic, but if Maryland passes the proposed law that will make individuals pay a tax on every mile they drive their vehicle, that number of new homes needed in could reach 250 a year soon. Good point! Just think, live in Gettysburg, work in MD, and since you're out of state, I guess they won't charge per mile!?
|
|
|
Post by Fire Marshal Bill on Jun 29, 2014 13:32:52 GMT -5
I always agreed that 250 homes a year was rather optimistic, but if Maryland passes the proposed law that will make individuals pay a tax on every mile they drive their vehicle, that number of new homes needed in could reach 250 a year soon. Good point! Just think, live in Gettysburg, work in MD, and since you're out of state, I guess they won't charge per mile!? As I understand, they will track it by your registration. You know each year when you apply for your vehicle registration, you have to put the current mileage on the application. So if your vehicle isn't registered in Maryland how will they know how far you drive, or how many miles are on Maryland highways. Think of the people who may live in Harney, and work in PA. They will still have to pay this fee, while I can drive from Greenmount through Maryland to DC, and will not pay any fee. That is until Pennsylvania gets the idea.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Jun 30, 2014 7:50:55 GMT -5
it'll be a matter of time before they coordinate it, I'd bet.
I like the fuel tax system a whole lot better, because mileage probably has a lot more to do with road wear than miles driven.
If anything, it's steeped higher than a linear relationship that as mileage drops, road wear goes up exponentially (e.g., a prius driven over a road 6-10 times puts less wear on it than a loaded tractor trailer).
But this kind of revenue collection probably doesn't have much to do with road wear.
All of that said, I doubt it will convince many people to move to a different area. People are going to come to PA if they are in the baltimore/washington area and they have enough money to get by there, but enough money to live well here, and that difference was really important to them.
They'd already be coming to the area in droves if that were the case. As I mentioned above, I've got relatives who have marketed land in hopes that such a bunch of people would be migrating and...well...they still have their land.
|
|
HoneyBadger
Poster Child
HoneyBadger don't give a shit.
Posts: 373
|
Post by HoneyBadger on Jun 30, 2014 19:37:48 GMT -5
As a stupid person (I'm sure a number of you agree with that statement) who has not kept up with the subject due to more pressing matters.......I have one simple question:
Will property taxes, school taxes and the other taxes we pay increase if this development comes to pass?
With our (now my) income recently reduced by 25% I'm not sure that I can keep my modest house if my taxes increase. My mother passed away in my living room - I don't want to lose my home to benefit people I don't know who don't care about me.
And no, I'm not too lazy to find a part-time job now that I'm not a full time caregiver. I must schedule back surgery soon in order to maintain mobility. And no, I don't want nor do I expect "oh, poor HB, that's tough." I know this crowd. And you people know that I don't bullshit. I'm asking a question and explaining why I'm asking the question.
If I get the response I anticipate (in addition to a civil response from a few folks), it will be months again - perhaps never - until I return. My skin has become extremely thin the past few months.
Thank you in advance to the few who will take my inquiry seriously. I've always taken care of myself and I will continue to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Jun 30, 2014 20:58:59 GMT -5
Honeybadger, You asked: "Will property taxes, school taxes and the other taxes we pay increase if this development comes to pass?"
According to everything we've learned so far, this development will not cause your taxes to increase. Actually, the residents will not require the use of the School System, since they are a 55+ Community. But, they will STILL be Paying School Tax!
Of course, GASD will have to rein in their spending, and not go hog-wild with the "Extra Tax Money" coming in.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Jul 1, 2014 12:45:21 GMT -5
I can't imagine that increases to pension and benefit plans for school districts won't cause the taxes to increase, anyway, without seeing any other changes. Out here on the western end of the state, our taxes have increased each of the last several (three?) years and I pay $4000 a year or a house that's got a $150k assessment.
We just got a notice that we should expect more increases the next time they set a budget because they expect the contribution to the teachers' pensions to go up more.
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Jul 1, 2014 12:54:57 GMT -5
I can't imagine that increases to pension and benefit plans for school districts won't cause the taxes to increase, anyway, without seeing any other changes. Out here on the western end of the state, our taxes have increased each of the last several (three?) years and I pay $4000 a year or a house that's got a $150k assessment. We just got a notice that we should expect more increases the next time they set a budget because they expect the contribution to the teachers' pensions to go up more. Which is why teacher's pensions should be based on a 401type plan (as proposed in the most recent budget talks). A 401k type plan is pretty standard for a lot of businesses these days, and potentially (especially for young people) could actually translate into a much bigger retirement pot. Have to bust the teacher's unions to accomplish that though. That being said, to answer Honey Badger's question. The proposed development will be made up of tax paying families that will pay school taxes but will not add one child to the school district. I don't think anyone thinks our taxes will go down, but it will help to offset any tax increase like davew is talking about. Encouraging new businesses in the district (like the proposed Gettysburg Crossing) will also help to offset any tax increases due to those businesses paying taxes as well as increased revenue to the county.
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on Jul 1, 2014 21:00:09 GMT -5
I can't imagine that increases to pension and benefit plans for school districts won't cause the taxes to increase, anyway, without seeing any other changes. Out here on the western end of the state, our taxes have increased each of the last several (three?) years and I pay $4000 a year or a house that's got a $150k assessment. We just got a notice that we should expect more increases the next time they set a budget because they expect the contribution to the teachers' pensions to go up more. Which is why teacher's pensions should be based on a 401type plan (as proposed in the most recent budget talks). A 401k type plan is pretty standard for a lot of businesses these days, and potentially (especially for young people) could actually translate into a much bigger retirement pot. Have to bust the teacher's unions to accomplish that though. That being said, to answer Honey Badger's question. The proposed development will be made up of tax paying families that will pay school taxes but will not add one child to the school district. I don't think anyone thinks our taxes will go down, but it will help to offset any tax increase like davew is talking about. Encouraging new businesses in the district (like the proposed Gettysburg Crossing) will also help to offset any tax increases due to those businesses paying taxes as well as increased revenue to the county. Most unions are accepting contracts these days to accept 401k plans. The problem is the school board HAS to pitch it AND stick to their guns in negotiations. then of corse they have to have to not propose to contribute some rediculous amount thats like 2-3 times more than what most companies offer. as for the families not adding children thats debatable. Im willing to bet after the first year or two the developer asks for those restrictions to be changed as well to allow families that may have children move in when he doesnt come any where close to selling 200 homes a year. Im wouldn't be surprised if he isnt even already planning on that. He just needs to get his foot in the door and get this approved first.
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Jul 2, 2014 8:04:25 GMT -5
as for the families not adding children thats debatable. Im willing to bet after the first year or two the developer asks for those restrictions to be changed as well to allow families that may have children move in when he doesnt come any where close to selling 200 homes a year. Im wouldn't be surprised if he isnt even already planning on that. He just needs to get his foot in the door and get this approved first. If you would bother to become informed about the project you would understand that can't and won't happen. In a restricted community the developer can't change the plans at will. He is legally bound to market the community as planned. To prove my point SC, how many mobile homes do you see in housing developments? The only realm of possibility that I foresee that would happen would be that every resident of the community would be agreeable to change the rules, and the possibility of that would be slim to none.
|
|
Dexter
Supreme Poster
Posts: 261
|
Post by Dexter on Jul 2, 2014 8:35:34 GMT -5
What will happen is that the 200 homes a year won't happen, vast areas of the development will sit undeveloped and then 10 years from now it will be deemed a blighted site and more taxpayers money will be used to turn it into a "normal" development.
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on Jul 2, 2014 9:47:38 GMT -5
as for the families not adding children thats debatable. Im willing to bet after the first year or two the developer asks for those restrictions to be changed as well to allow families that may have children move in when he doesnt come any where close to selling 200 homes a year. Im wouldn't be surprised if he isnt even already planning on that. He just needs to get his foot in the door and get this approved first. If you would bother to become informed about the project you would understand that can't and won't happen. In a restricted community the developer can't change the plans at will. He is legally bound to market the community as planned. To prove my point SC, how many mobile homes do you see in housing developments? The only realm of possibility that I foresee that would happen would be that every resident of the community would be agreeable to change the rules, and the possibility of that would be slim to none.
I know you said you spent a lot of time looking into this but perhaps you missed a few articles like these. I'm sure you will understand why myself and others are very skeptical about this project and the "projections" this developer has. While it is true he limited to the age of people he can sell these houses to, very often these projects fail and they wind up asking for the zoning laws to be changed so that they can sell the houses. BTW it is not highly un likely that the residents and the authorites will not vote to lift the restrictions, as you claim! In fact it's highly likely they will vote in favor of the change. The ones who have bought in aren't going to let their investment go to shit. when that happens their property value will drop and no one will buy it from them. essentially they are stuck with a house that is worth nothing in a half built retirement community.
Their only option will be to vote in favor of the rule change. Lifesaver, maybe it is you who needs to become informed. Maybe you need to stop listening to this guy like he is god and do some looking into this on your own. The answer to finding out the real story behind this is not going to this guy's dog and pony shows so please, stop constantly trying to me get to go. He is never going to tell you anything but what he wants you to hear.
This "project" is a joke and this guy will never sell 200 55+ homes a year in Gettysburg.
Here is my personal favorite quote from this article On the zoning board front, many towns said yes to the developments precisely because they were 55-and-over, and thus, were not likely to tax the town’s limited resources. “It’s an easier sale to the community. Nobody’s threatened by a bunch of seniors moving in,” says Nick Ruccolo, CPM, CMCA, PCAM, vice president of Crowninshield Management Corp. in Peabody, Massachusetts.
newenglandcondo.com/articles/388/1/Over-and-Under/Page1.html
Marcus believes that, while the housing sector’s woes may have played a role in stalled over-55 projects, developers also may have overestimated their market. “The first project might have been successful, whereas the second or third one might run into problems. I think it was an issue of over-saturation.”
You will also notice in this article that the promises of those "projects" also sound very, very similar the ones being made here. They all promised to sell right around 200 homes etc.
Here are just a few quotes from the article.
"These days, the over 55-community is looking a little younger. Faced with a troubled real-estate market, developers around the U.S. are taking steps to reduce age limits to 45 or, in some cases, to lift restrictions entirely.
• The Villages of Cedar Ridge in Wilbraham, Massachusetts, sold 12 units when it opened as an over-55 community in 2007. Last year, the town planning board removed the age restriction, allowing the remaining 200 units to be sold to all ages.
• Earlier this year, a Bel Air developer petitioned the planning board to have the age restriction lifted from Legacy at Gateway, which had sold about 50 of a planned 278 units, causing protests from over-55 residents. His request had not been resolved at the time of this writing.
• At the Pine River Village in New Jersey, a developer had sold 20 of a planned 173 homes, USA Today reported. Pine River’s 26 residents and the town planning board voted in favor of making half of all planned homes, to be built in a separate development, available to all ages.
• At the Sun City Grand in Arizona, homeowners voted last year to allow 15 percent of units to be sold to people 45 and older."
and
"“There are two major obstacles to getting this done. It’s not impossible, but it can be difficult,” says Marcus. “Usually, the 55-and-over restriction was put in place by the zoning board or planning board. So the board has to agree to lift it. And typically, the condominium documents reference the restriction, so you’d need a vote of the owners—either two-thirds or 75 percent—to amend the master deed.”
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Jul 2, 2014 12:36:04 GMT -5
If you would bother to become informed about the project you would understand that can't and won't happen. In a restricted community the developer can't change the plans at will. He is legally bound to market the community as planned. To prove my point SC, how many mobile homes do you see in housing developments? The only realm of possibility that I foresee that would happen would be that every resident of the community would be agreeable to change the rules, and the possibility of that would be slim to none.
I know you said you spent a lot of time looking into this but perhaps you missed a few articles like these. I'm sure you will understand why myself and others are very skeptical about this project and the "projections" this developer has. While it is true he limited to the age of people he can sell these houses to, very often these projects fail and they wind up asking for the zoning laws to be changed so that they can sell the houses. BTW it is not highly un likely that the residents and the authorites will not vote to lift the restrictions, as you claim! In fact it's highly likely they will vote in favor of the change. The ones who have bought in aren't going to let their investment go to shit. when that happens their property value will drop and no one will buy it from them. essentially they are stuck with a house that is worth nothing in a half built retirement community.
Their only option will be to vote in favor of the rule change. Lifesaver, maybe it is you who needs to become informed. Maybe you need to stop listening to this guy like he is god and do some looking into this on your own. The answer to finding out the real story behind this is not going to this guy's dog and pony shows so please, stop constantly trying to me get to go. He is never going to tell you anything but what he wants you to hear.
This "project" is a joke and this guy will never sell 200 55+ homes a year in Gettysburg.
Here is my personal favorite quote from this article On the zoning board front, many towns said yes to the developments precisely because they were 55-and-over, and thus, were not likely to tax the town’s limited resources. “It’s an easier sale to the community. Nobody’s threatened by a bunch of seniors moving in,” says Nick Ruccolo, CPM, CMCA, PCAM, vice president of Crowninshield Management Corp. in Peabody, Massachusetts.
newenglandcondo.com/articles/388/1/Over-and-Under/Page1.html
Marcus believes that, while the housing sector’s woes may have played a role in stalled over-55 projects, developers also may have overestimated their market. “The first project might have been successful, whereas the second or third one might run into problems. I think it was an issue of over-saturation.”
You will also notice in this article that the promises of those "projects" also sound very, very similar the ones being made here. They all promised to sell right around 200 homes etc.
Here are just a few quotes from the article.
"These days, the over 55-community is looking a little younger. Faced with a troubled real-estate market, developers around the U.S. are taking steps to reduce age limits to 45 or, in some cases, to lift restrictions entirely.
• The Villages of Cedar Ridge in Wilbraham, Massachusetts, sold 12 units when it opened as an over-55 community in 2007. Last year, the town planning board removed the age restriction, allowing the remaining 200 units to be sold to all ages.
• Earlier this year, a Bel Air developer petitioned the planning board to have the age restriction lifted from Legacy at Gateway, which had sold about 50 of a planned 278 units, causing protests from over-55 residents. His request had not been resolved at the time of this writing.
• At the Pine River Village in New Jersey, a developer had sold 20 of a planned 173 homes, USA Today reported. Pine River’s 26 residents and the town planning board voted in favor of making half of all planned homes, to be built in a separate development, available to all ages.
• At the Sun City Grand in Arizona, homeowners voted last year to allow 15 percent of units to be sold to people 45 and older."
and
"“There are two major obstacles to getting this done. It’s not impossible, but it can be difficult,” says Marcus. “Usually, the 55-and-over restriction was put in place by the zoning board or planning board. So the board has to agree to lift it. And typically, the condominium documents reference the restriction, so you’d need a vote of the owners—either two-thirds or 75 percent—to amend the master deed.”
www.northjersey.com/community-news/community-events-and-announcements/only-seven-homes-remain-at-55-community-in-ramsey-1.730294www.55places.com/pennsylvania Out of the 70 55+ communities in this listing 41 are "resale only" www.thevillagesfloridabook.com/new-home-sales-2012/Again, oh wise one..... How many mobile homes do you see in housing developments?
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on Jul 2, 2014 14:08:18 GMT -5
I know you said you spent a lot of time looking into this but perhaps you missed a few articles like these. I'm sure you will understand why myself and others are very skeptical about this project and the "projections" this developer has. While it is true he limited to the age of people he can sell these houses to, very often these projects fail and they wind up asking for the zoning laws to be changed so that they can sell the houses. BTW it is not highly un likely that the residents and the authorites will not vote to lift the restrictions, as you claim! In fact it's highly likely they will vote in favor of the change. The ones who have bought in aren't going to let their investment go to shit. when that happens their property value will drop and no one will buy it from them. essentially they are stuck with a house that is worth nothing in a half built retirement community.
Their only option will be to vote in favor of the rule change. Lifesaver, maybe it is you who needs to become informed. Maybe you need to stop listening to this guy like he is god and do some looking into this on your own. The answer to finding out the real story behind this is not going to this guy's dog and pony shows so please, stop constantly trying to me get to go. He is never going to tell you anything but what he wants you to hear.
This "project" is a joke and this guy will never sell 200 55+ homes a year in Gettysburg.
Here is my personal favorite quote from this article On the zoning board front, many towns said yes to the developments precisely because they were 55-and-over, and thus, were not likely to tax the town’s limited resources. “It’s an easier sale to the community. Nobody’s threatened by a bunch of seniors moving in,” says Nick Ruccolo, CPM, CMCA, PCAM, vice president of Crowninshield Management Corp. in Peabody, Massachusetts.
newenglandcondo.com/articles/388/1/Over-and-Under/Page1.html
Marcus believes that, while the housing sector’s woes may have played a role in stalled over-55 projects, developers also may have overestimated their market. “The first project might have been successful, whereas the second or third one might run into problems. I think it was an issue of over-saturation.”
You will also notice in this article that the promises of those "projects" also sound very, very similar the ones being made here. They all promised to sell right around 200 homes etc.
Here are just a few quotes from the article.
"These days, the over 55-community is looking a little younger. Faced with a troubled real-estate market, developers around the U.S. are taking steps to reduce age limits to 45 or, in some cases, to lift restrictions entirely.
• The Villages of Cedar Ridge in Wilbraham, Massachusetts, sold 12 units when it opened as an over-55 community in 2007. Last year, the town planning board removed the age restriction, allowing the remaining 200 units to be sold to all ages.
• Earlier this year, a Bel Air developer petitioned the planning board to have the age restriction lifted from Legacy at Gateway, which had sold about 50 of a planned 278 units, causing protests from over-55 residents. His request had not been resolved at the time of this writing.
• At the Pine River Village in New Jersey, a developer had sold 20 of a planned 173 homes, USA Today reported. Pine River’s 26 residents and the town planning board voted in favor of making half of all planned homes, to be built in a separate development, available to all ages.
• At the Sun City Grand in Arizona, homeowners voted last year to allow 15 percent of units to be sold to people 45 and older."
and
"“There are two major obstacles to getting this done. It’s not impossible, but it can be difficult,” says Marcus. “Usually, the 55-and-over restriction was put in place by the zoning board or planning board. So the board has to agree to lift it. And typically, the condominium documents reference the restriction, so you’d need a vote of the owners—either two-thirds or 75 percent—to amend the master deed.”
www.northjersey.com/community-news/community-events-and-announcements/only-seven-homes-remain-at-55-community-in-ramsey-1.730294www.55places.com/pennsylvania Out of the 70 55+ communities in this listing 41 are "resale only" www.thevillagesfloridabook.com/new-home-sales-2012/Again, oh wise one..... How many mobile homes do you see in housing developments? First off the link to the homes in New jersey are "luxury homes" selling for 550,000 to over 700,000 surely you’re not comparing them to this project, I hope? If so you are more naïve than I thought. this is an upscale place in an upscale area catering to people who live quite a bit better than the people this “project” will be marketing to. It’s apples to oranges these are 3500+ square foot homes. Your second link doesn’t even work. Your third link is in Florida. I can agree with you if this this project was in Florida it would have a shot. Florida has long been a destination for people looking to retire and a very desirable place to retire with good year round weather, attractions and things to do. Most people do not want to retire to a tourist trap with seasonable weather and nothing to do. Further more had you bothered to read your own article you would have noticed they clearly stated that this place is the exception not the rule and they outsold their nearest national competitor in ( CALIFORNIA BTW )by over 1400 homes. Again if you happen to take a look at the place you were comparing this “project “ you would also notice the prices of those homes. The first three homes that popped up were 519,00/ 395,000 and 395,000 are you starting to understand why these places that are successful are different? I’m sure you don’t but hopefully people reading this that are trying to form an honest opinion do. Now , I have no idea where in the heck you keep coming up with mobile homes and even what the hell your point is with mobile homes, so It makes it hard to even debate that with you. You continually act like this is a 100% done deal and no matter what these houses will sell. While completely ignoring the fact that not just here but all over the country these 55+ developments aren’t doing so well. As well for you and others here to tell people asking about taxes going up and other things that it won’t happen is false. If everything goes 100% as planned, YES it probably won’t affect anyone. Should any part of this go wrong it is a different story. Stop trying to be a shill for this guy and look at this in an honest perspective. If they do not sell 200+ homes a year (which he won’t) and have to lower the requirements it will add bodies to the school district. If he doesn’t sell out, the people who do buy into this will also be affected. There is risk in this project as with any and for you and others on board to blatantly dance around that fact is wrong. No business venture is a sure thing and this one certainly isn’t any different. I respect you and everyone else for wanting responsible growth and progress and I want the same. There is however the word responsible inserted in there. Simply jumping aboard every “project” that floats by just because you want something isn’t responsible growth, it’s desperation!
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Jul 2, 2014 14:25:50 GMT -5
I can't imagine that increases to pension and benefit plans for school districts won't cause the taxes to increase, anyway, without seeing any other changes. Out here on the western end of the state, our taxes have increased each of the last several (three?) years and I pay $4000 a year or a house that's got a $150k assessment. We just got a notice that we should expect more increases the next time they set a budget because they expect the contribution to the teachers' pensions to go up more. Which is why teacher's pensions should be based on a 401type plan (as proposed in the most recent budget talks). A 401k type plan is pretty standard for a lot of businesses these days, and potentially (especially for young people) could actually translate into a much bigger retirement pot. Have to bust the teacher's unions to accomplish that though. That being said, to answer Honey Badger's question. The proposed development will be made up of tax paying families that will pay school taxes but will not add one child to the school district. I don't think anyone thinks our taxes will go down, but it will help to offset any tax increase like davew is talking about. Encouraging new businesses in the district (like the proposed Gettysburg Crossing) will also help to offset any tax increases due to those businesses paying taxes as well as increased revenue to the county. Well, the trouble in just changing folks to a 401k type pension is that it doesn't really solve much in terms of what's generating the current demand for more contributions. That current contribution requirement is based on benefits already earned, and changing new hires to 401k type planes will be a help down the road, but it won't do much for a while. Pension systems in the united states in general need to be overhauled to spread risk among people retired, people working, and the group responsible for contributions so that the pain is thirded, not laid all on one person. A 401k isn't really a good option for at least half of the population because half of the population has no ability to manage their money in retirement, and they have no hedge against longevity issues aside from purchasing an annuity (and annuities are loaded with loads and costs that are great for the seller of an annuity, but not great for anyone else). The solution needs to end up somewhere between where risk is shared, but things that cause less risk (but great risk to an indivdual) like longevity are pooled. At any rate, expect the taxes to keep going up unless someone finds another money source, because the problem is based on benefits already earned vs. those that will be earned in the future.
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on Jul 2, 2014 15:06:51 GMT -5
Which is why teacher's pensions should be based on a 401type plan (as proposed in the most recent budget talks). A 401k type plan is pretty standard for a lot of businesses these days, and potentially (especially for young people) could actually translate into a much bigger retirement pot. Have to bust the teacher's unions to accomplish that though. That being said, to answer Honey Badger's question. The proposed development will be made up of tax paying families that will pay school taxes but will not add one child to the school district. I don't think anyone thinks our taxes will go down, but it will help to offset any tax increase like davew is talking about. Encouraging new businesses in the district (like the proposed Gettysburg Crossing) will also help to offset any tax increases due to those businesses paying taxes as well as increased revenue to the county. Well, the trouble in just changing folks to a 401k type pension is that it doesn't really solve much in terms of what's generating the current demand for more contributions. That current contribution requirement is based on benefits already earned, and changing new hires to 401k type planes will be a help down the road, but it won't do much for a while. Pension systems in the united states in general need to be overhauled to spread risk among people retired, people working, and the group responsible for contributions so that the pain is thirded, not laid all on one person. A 401k isn't really a good option for at least half of the population because half of the population has no ability to manage their money in retirement, and they have no hedge against longevity issues aside from purchasing an annuity (and annuities are loaded with loads and costs that are great for the seller of an annuity, but not great for anyone else). The solution needs to end up somewhere between where risk is shared, but things that cause less risk (but great risk to an indivdual) like longevity are pooled. At any rate, expect the taxes to keep going up unless someone finds another money source, because the problem is based on benefits already earned vs. those that will be earned in the future. actually switching over to 401k does solve a lot for companies and unions that's why both are so eager to do it. When you switch over it's not just new hires who have to go to 401k. All employees do. The pension plan stops and all who are vested get what they have earned up to that point. Then the company says for instance anyone over 50 they contribute 10% 42-50 will get 8% and everyone else gets a company match up to 6%. They do this so that those older employees can build money faster since they are retiring sooner. Usually with these plans don't require you to manage your plan the company goes with will manage your plan for you or let you do it yourself. Usually older people are more afraid to enter these plans than the younger ones.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Jul 2, 2014 15:33:09 GMT -5
I don't think everything is being grasped here.
Let's assume you have a plan that's got $1B of earned benefits Let's assume that it also has $700 million of assets
You have to fund the difference between $700mm and $1B
Let's also assume that the value of the benefits being added to the plan are $40 million this year, and that payroll is also $1b.
If you decide to switch to a 401k and provide 4% of pay, then you still have to fund the $300 million of underfunding that already exists and you have to provide $40 million of contributions to a 401k type plan (whether it's a matching contribution, or just a flat % of pay for everyone, who knows?)
Companies are gung ho to go to 401ks not necessarily for savings on future accruals, but because there is less company risk. The old pensions that funded half of your income at age 65 technically were assumed to cost somewhere around 4% of pay. If you provide 4% of pay in a 401k plan, and the assets in the pension earn well and all of the assumptions are met, then 4% is 4%. If people outlive expectations, it starts to add costs, but only a little at a time. If the market crashes, then there are a lot of costs added all at once.
The other reason companies love 401k type plans is that they can expense them as they go. For a pension, if you have any deficit compared to whatever current market rates are (not vs. expected cash costs, but based on an arbitrary calculation assuming that you fund to bond rates) then you have to recognize that deficit on your balance sheet like anything else you'd owe.
You can be in a good cash position, but because of some negative news over a period of months, look like you're underfunded on that bond basis, only to have the rates rise again next year and make it appear that you're not underfunded again.
You following? Just because you switch all future benefits to non-pension doesn't get you out of funding the prior benefits ($300 million in our example) that are now not funded because the market tanked.
we feel OK about the market right now because it seems high. I can't imagine that it's as high as it would be if it would've just earned what we expected it to earn from 2001 to now. Returns not made on assets can only be corrected by really high future returns or additional contributions.
Right now, we're making additional contributions.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Jul 2, 2014 15:37:53 GMT -5
(the numbers for teachers are probably going to be higher than 4% because their plan is twice to three times as rich as a corporate plan that provides 50% of pay at age 65. I think they are somewhere in the range of 75-80% of pay at age 57, roughly). The difference in age (57 vs. 65) and the difference in % (75-80 vs. 50%) is going to be more than a factor of two.)
Disclaimer - I work on pension plans. I don't, however, work on the state plan so I really don't know exactly how the funding rules work for it.
I can say, though, that on most governmental pension plans, there is much bigger pressure to fund them less well than there is to fund corporate plans less well. If you've got a pension that's 90% funded (no clue if this has been a recent occurrence in PA, though), it's mighty tempting for a lawmaker to decide to take all or part of this year's pension contribution and try to spend it somewhere else, especially if there's really a need for money.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Jul 2, 2014 15:45:45 GMT -5
actually switching over to 401k does solve a lot for companies and unions that's why both are so eager to do it. When you switch over it's not just new hires who have to go to 401k. All employees do. The pension plan stops and all who are vested get what they have earned up to that point. Then the company says for instance anyone over 50 they contribute 10% 42-50 will get 8% and everyone else gets a company match up to 6%. They do this so that those older employees can build money faster since they are retiring sooner. Usually with these plans don't require you to manage your plan the company goes with will manage your plan for you or let you do it yourself. Usually older people are more afraid to enter these plans than the younger ones. also, I think there's some overestimation of what "manage your plan" means. The bulk of participants in 401k plans either allocate too little or they take holidays where they decide they need the money and they don't contribute. I don't know what % of people would actually have enough to fund a safe retirement (including the risk that they live too long) out of a 401k, but I would be surprised if it's greater than 25%. And on top of that, many who leave a job get a financial advisor, and the advisors cannot wait to get a hold of the balance in an IRA so they can shift the investments to something that generates substantial sales commissions and fees for them. That's getting a little better these says, but the rule of thumb when I first started this job was that institutional pension funds earned 2% per year more than 401ks because of missteps by individuals. I've you've ever been involved with an investment board, it's not hard to see why - they just have the resources to know more about proper allocation and to make reasonable moves. What's dollar invested at 7% worth in 35 years? $10.68 what's a dollar worth if it's invested at 5%? $5.51 Hopefully that has or will be narrowing. It can be painful for people to do prudent things and take some risks with investing, but doing so is key to having enough. Most people both don't contribute enough over their lifetime, and they also don't make prudent moves consistently enough. Certainly pensions as they are known now won't exist forever, because employers just don't want the risks. And now governments don't, either (who can blame them?). The 401k type plan is going to create a class of people who are living only on social security at a time when the government wants to cut it, too. It's not ideal, and there's no reason that it can't be more ideal than it is - to come up with something that is somewhere between the two systems. They do it in several european countries. We just seem to be satisfied to say "we're better than everyone else, so we're not going to learn from changes anyone else has made".
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Jul 2, 2014 15:53:09 GMT -5
First off the link to the homes in New jersey are "luxury homes" selling for 550,000 to over 700,000 surely you’re not comparing them to this project, I hope? If so you are more naïve than I thought. this is an upscale place in an upscale area catering to people who live quite a bit better than the people this “project” will be marketing to. It’s apples to oranges these are 3500+ square foot homes. Your second link doesn’t even work. Your third link is in Florida. I can agree with you if this this project was in Florida it would have a shot. Florida has long been a destination for people looking to retire and a very desirable place to retire with good year round weather, attractions and things to do. Most people do not want to retire to a tourist trap with seasonable weather and nothing to do. Further more had you bothered to read your own article you would have noticed they clearly stated that this place is the exception not the rule and they outsold their nearest national competitor in ( CALIFORNIA BTW )by over 1400 homes. Again if you happen to take a look at the place you were comparing this “project “ you would also notice the prices of those homes. The first three homes that popped up were 519,00/ 395,000 and 395,000 are you starting to understand why these places that are successful are different? I’m sure you don’t but hopefully people reading this that are trying to form an honest opinion do. Now , I have no idea where in the heck you keep coming up with mobile homes and even what the hell your point is with mobile homes, so It makes it hard to even debate that with you. You continually act like this is a 100% done deal and no matter what these houses will sell. While completely ignoring the fact that not just here but all over the country these 55+ developments aren’t doing so well. As well for you and others here to tell people asking about taxes going up and other things that it won’t happen is false. If everything goes 100% as planned, YES it probably won’t affect anyone. Should any part of this go wrong it is a different story. Stop trying to be a shill for this guy and look at this in an honest perspective. If they do not sell 200+ homes a year (which he won’t) and have to lower the requirements it will add bodies to the school district. If he doesn’t sell out, the people who do buy into this will also be affected. There is risk in this project as with any and for you and others on board to blatantly dance around that fact is wrong. No business venture is a sure thing and this one certainly isn’t any different. I respect you and everyone else for wanting responsible growth and progress and I want the same. There is however the word responsible inserted in there. Simply jumping aboard every “project” that floats by just because you want something isn’t responsible growth, it’s desperation! LOL. If you mean supporting a project from a developer with an over 20 year successful track record of building these types of communities that I'm a shill for him, well yeah, count me in. Never said the project was without risk. Never said the success of the development hinged solely on the sale of 200 homes a year. Show me where I have. Surely you understand market values and understand that a "luxury" home in NJ would cost much less here for the same home? www.55places.com/pennsylvania Out of the seventy communities in PA 41 are resale only. I didn't go through the rest to determine how many were new sale/resale to determine the "success" of the development. I'm sure you can find one or two to support your argument if you look hard enough. Never heard of having two homes? One in PA, one in Florida? Does the term "snowbird" sound familiar to you? Pretty simple question. Have you ever seen a mobile home in a housing development because the developer was so anxious to make a sale? You obviously have no clue of the mindset of people in HOA's. By the way, I personally have no interest in buying a property there. Doesn't mean I don't support it. Link still doesn't work to click on it. If you type in the address it will come up.
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on Jul 3, 2014 1:03:30 GMT -5
Surely you understand market values and understand that a "luxury" home in NJ would cost much less here for the same home?" Obviously you don't! If you did you would understand why that particular 55+ development is totaly different than the one being proposed here. www.55places.com/pennsylvania Out of the seventy communities in PA 41 are resale only. I didn't go through the rest to determine how many were new sale/resale to determine the "success" of the development. I'm sure you can find one or two to support your argument if you look hard enough. "] Okay a bunch of them are built, established and sold out, so how many of them sold 200 homes a year or even close to that? This is the real kicker here not if people are living at these places. This guy has to sell x amount of these homes in x amount of time to meet his obligations. Never heard of having two homes? One in PA, one in Florida? Does the term "snowbird" sound familiar to you?"] So now you're telling me that retired people are going to flock here and make these their second homes. HA that is fucking laughable. Surely you don't believe this do you. Pretty simple question. Have you ever seen a mobile home in a housing development because the developer was so anxious to make a sale?" Again I have no idea wtf this mobile housing thing is you keep going back to. I never said anythng about this guy failing and then putting mobile homes in nor do I recall anyone else saying this. You obviously have no clue of the mindset of people in HOA's. You obviously have no clue about facts. As Paul asked you much earlier in this thread how many of these retirment communities you glow about in pa have sold any where near 200 homes a year? You're very good about ignoring facts and turning a cheek to the negitive possibilities of this all the while the only thing you can offer is to come to a meeting this guy is holding and listen to him. for instance, its shown to you that no where around here has 200 homes a year been sold. you instantly move right on, never bothering to adress how it will be done only offering that "the developer" says he can do it and he has a track record which btw I seriously involves him selling 200+ 55 and over homes a year. You make the claim that there is no way he can come back and have the restrictions changed so I show you thats its done all over the country when these communities fail. Then your reply is to show me links about how many places in PA are re sale only. which BTW is totaly irrellivant to wether or not he can sell 200+ homes a year and meet his finiacial obligations. Everytime someone offers you these facts you go off to the next point and then circle back to telling us we should come to one his meetings so he can spoon feed us his kool aid. I am suprised though at one thing you have finally admitted that this project isn't sure thing, you're making progress. I appreciate that you have looked into things but what in my opinion you have failed to do is weigh the variables. Youre looking at things like how many of these communities are full etc. when what you really have to look at is how fast they sold, who they marketed to and when these communities were built and marketed. As well who they were marketed to. Building upsacale 55+ homes in upscale places that are larger than the average persons home is not the same in any aspect as what this guy is trying to do here. I seriously doubt he is going to be building 3500+ sq ft homes and selling them for 500,000 and up here in Gettysburg. When will the powers that be make their decision on if they are going to allow this or not?
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Jul 3, 2014 8:38:19 GMT -5
Obviously you don't! If you did you would understand why that particular 55+ development is totaly different than the one being proposed here. Okay a bunch of them are built, established and sold out, so how many of them sold 200 homes a year or even close to that? This is the real kicker here not if people are living at these places. This guy has to sell x amount of these homes in x amount of time to meet his obligations. So now you're telling me that retired people are going to flock here and make these their second homes. HA that is fucking laughable. Surely you don't believe this do you. Again I have no idea wtf this mobile housing thing is you keep going back to. I never said anythng about this guy failing and then putting mobile homes in nor do I recall anyone else saying this. You obviously have no clue about facts. As Paul asked you much earlier in this thread how many of these retirment communities you glow about in pa have sold any where near 200 homes a year? You're very good about ignoring facts and turning a cheek to the negitive possibilities of this all the while the only thing you can offer is to come to a meeting this guy is holding and listen to him. for instance, its shown to you that no where around here has 200 homes a year been sold. you instantly move right on, never bothering to adress how it will be done only offering that "the developer" says he can do it and he has a track record which btw I seriously involves him selling 200+ 55 and over homes a year. You make the claim that there is no way he can come back and have the restrictions changed so I show you thats its done all over the country when these communities fail. Then your reply is to show me links about how many places in PA are re sale only. which BTW is totaly irrellivant to wether or not he can sell 200+ homes a year and meet his finiacial obligations. Everytime someone offers you these facts you go off to the next point and then circle back to telling us we should come to one his meetings so he can spoon feed us his kool aid. I am suprised though at one thing you have finally admitted that this project isn't sure thing, you're making progress. I appreciate that you have looked into things but what in my opinion you have failed to do is weigh the variables. Youre looking at things like how many of these communities are full etc. when what you really have to look at is how fast they sold, who they marketed to and when these communities were built and marketed. As well who they were marketed to. Building upsacale 55+ homes in upscale places that are larger than the average persons home is not the same in any aspect as what this guy is trying to do here. I seriously doubt he is going to be building 3500+ sq ft homes and selling them for 500,000 and up here in Gettysburg. When will the powers that be make their decision on if they are going to allow this or not? LOL. No SC it is you that doesn't understand that market values and retirement communities vary widely depending on the area, location, location, location.Comparing apples and oranges. You really don't think that someone will find the idea attractive to sell their home in Maryland for 700K to buy a beautiful home here for 400K, no maintenance, no tax on pensions, a cost of living reduction, in a beautiful rural area, yet in an hour or less can be right back into all the things they liked about living in Maryland, close to families still living there, work if they are still working? Who says the project can only be successful if they sell 200 homes a year? Do you really think that the success of the project would be hinged on that finite number? Of course not! They will need to sell "x" homes a year to be successful. No, they will live here as their PRIMARY home and winter in Florida. Duh. I know a number of people that do that now. Making a general statement about developments, not even talking about this one. Take a ride up to the new development outside of Bendersville and tell me if you see any mobile homes in that development. And no, you don't understand the mindset of people in HMO's. People who will fine or oust a resident for hanging the American Flag the wrong way, or in the wrong place. Your statement you referenced is correct. Difficult, if not impossible. And it would take 50-75% of the residents there to agree to the change, then that change would have to comply with local zoning ordinances or seek a variance. But let's say for arguments sake that the residents do vote to open up the homes to anyone. The developer will still be selling homes and making money, the homeowners will still pay property tax, but they will also add additional burden to the school districts by adding more children, which will offset at least a portion of the tax revenue from those homes. Still not a loss, in my opinion. I have NEVER said this project was a sure thing. I have no idea when the "powers that be" will make that decision. I think they are making the decision on Gettysburg Crossing first. Perhaps you don't know that the Gettysburg Chamber of Commerce have come out in support of this project, just like they did for the casino. Maybe they see a benefit that you don't?
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on Jul 3, 2014 14:09:53 GMT -5
LOL. No SC it is you that doesn't understand that market values and retirement communities vary widely depending on the area, location, location, location.Comparing apples and oranges. You really don't think that someone will find the idea attractive to sell their home in Maryland for 700K to buy a beautiful home here for 400K, no maintenance, no tax on pensions, a cost of living reduction, in a beautiful rural area, yet in an hour or less can be right back into all the things they liked about living in Maryland, close to families still living there, work if they are still working? Who says the project can only be successful if they sell 200 homes a year? Do you really think that the success of the project would be hinged on that finite number? Of course not! They will need to sell "x" homes a year to be successful. No, they will live here as their PRIMARY home and winter in Florida. Duh. I know a number of people that do that now. Making a general statement about developments, not even talking about this one. Take a ride up to the new development outside of Bendersville and tell me if you see any mobile homes in that development. And no, you don't understand the mindset of people in HMO's. People who will fine or oust a resident for hanging the American Flag the wrong way, or in the wrong place. Your statement you referenced is correct. Difficult, if not impossible. And it would take 50-75% of the residents there to agree to the change, then that change would have to comply with local zoning ordinances or seek a variance. But let's say for arguments sake that the residents do vote to open up the homes to anyone. The developer will still be selling homes and making money, the homeowners will still pay property tax, but they will also add additional burden to the school districts by adding more children, which will offset at least a portion of the tax revenue from those homes. Still not a loss, in my opinion. I have NEVER said this project was a sure thing. I have no idea when the "powers that be" will make that decision. I think they are making the decision on Gettysburg Crossing first. Perhaps you don't know that the Gettysburg Chamber of Commerce have come out in support of this project, just like they did for the casino. Maybe they see a benefit that you don't? Lifesaver, the fact that you can't understand why those 50-75% of people who have bought would vote to lift the restrictions if this doesn't go as the developer has planned and the project can't meet it's debts shows your total lack of understanding in this whole thing. With that said I'm done with this because not only will you ever see the other side of this coin, I'm convinced that you don't want to either. This is one of those things where only time will see what will happen Honestly I hope it doesn't fail I just can't see how it won't.
|
|