Impact fees can be shelved -- for awhile

     Putting a hold on residential impact fees is probably the right thing to do, at least until planners send the message that it's time to reinstate them.
     And  that's the rub:  Commissioners Frazier and Rothschild are on record as being generally against any restraints on what they euphemistically refer to as "property rights," and would be only to happy to see impact fees go away altogether. They don't have mush use for planning and zoning, and would be happy if we had only enough government to keep conservatives in power.
     I believe the overwhelming majority of residents, giving it some thought, want more than that.
     I recall budget director Ted Zaleski raising the idea that impact fees can and should be reduced when housing and population growth slows. It makes sense to me that if you are going to raise the fees when sheer numbers of people strain resources -- schools, roads, police and fire safety -- you can turn back the fees when the numbers subside.
     That's predicated on the concept of catching up and then keeping up, a mantra I kept repeating even before I was in office. People asked me, when I was a candidate, if I would cut taxes, as if that was the only criteria for election. I candidly said I had been hearing too much from firefighters and educators about how far behind we were, and could not in good conscience promise to cut taxes until I was assured we were caught up.
     But ideologues don't care about subtleties: Cut taxes, cut spending, and then it's everyone for themselves. Okay if you're talking about a sports event, but not avoiding chaos in a community.
     If the commissioners choose to turn off the impact fees for the time being, that may be appropriate.
     Those of us whose definition of property rights includes having a plan for growth will be watching, and ready to mobilize others who are willing to invest in protection against having a junk yard next door to us, or a solid investment in public education, fire and ambulance response.
     Planning and zoning and adequate fees for residential growth also ensures that we do catch up and keep up to provide quality of life programs like  recreational facilities for our kids and others, senior accommodations, and safety nets for people with needs.
     We want more than a collection of tribes; we want a cohesive community that respects individuals with differing requirements, within reason.