 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
I want to make some updates to this page and was wondering if anybody has any ideas or suggections. Also, if there is anything that people want more information on or they may want to see, please let me know. For now I am thinking about writing about different types of impact fees and give examples. I am also working to go more in depth into the description of what it is including how cities use them. (Aem0301 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC))
More information edit
I have taken the time and updated the article's history and definition. I still want to add more information, but I would like to know what others would like to see. I am thinking about adding more information about court cases and how they have dealt with impact fees over time. Plus, I am thinking about discussing the development of linkage and mitigation fees along with how impact fees haave helped them develop over time. Does that sound like information that is necessary and should be included? And what else should be included? (Aem0301 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC))
Suggestions edit
Some more thoughts... add some more internal wikilinks to other articles (see MOS:LINK). Add more sources and the one to Impactfee.com should not go directly to the main site. A reference should reference the material directly - so it should go to an article or something that can quickly substantiate the statement. I just scanned through the article and it seemed like it was missing a bit of the criticism, such as some private interests and public officials believe that impact fees constrain local economic development, serving as a de facto "tax" on capital, stifling investment, and driving job growth to other fee-free jurisdictions - "Paying for Prosperity: Impact Fees and Job Growth". I may have missed it but I didn't read much of the "controversy" as stated in the Brookings paper. While all these points may be properly and perhaps easily rebutted, they need to be included. I would not include this as any type of controversy or criticism section - work the points into the article under the topics. Present it in a neutral tone, not taking sides. Morphh (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am not really sure why this article should be used because it doesn't actually explain the controversies; instead it discusses how they are good and how the controversies are not reality. I can use that in the article, but it is still not going to express the downfalls of impact fees since it argues against them. In my own studies there are only a couple issues that have arisen due to impact fees such as costs being passed onto property owners which I already pointed out, but that is about it since that is the biggest one. I can use the given article to represent believed downfalls of impact fees and discuss why these are not supported or true, but other than that I am not fully aware of what other issues that they have. I don’t personally feel that there are that many criticisms that surround them since so many communities use them and states accept them so if there are any sources or issues you are aware of just let me know. After reading the article I think that it easily expressed how there isn’t really any criticism, so I don’t know what to really include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aem0301 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your thoughts but you can't take that position in the article. See WP:NPOV policy. You must represent each point of view equally and do not represent one view as truth. You can include proponent arguments that try to disprove the critical opposition, but you have to include the relevant criticism and do so in a way that is neutral. Morphh (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
An impact fee is a fee... I would never have guessed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.194.145.3 (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)