Tax land values, and the impact of population growth and development is properly assessed upon the beneficiaries.

Right wingers fought environmental standards that would have limited development for years and called them “statist.” Now that the bad things the environmentalists predicted are coming to pass, attempts to use government to undo the damage with the least amount of financial loss to citizens is also called “statist.”

Well, son, you can take your statism and shove it where the son don’t shine.

Most middle class-people have the bulk of their life savings in their homes. As a homeowner, I would not appreciate it if a home I purchased in good faith was left without essential services or otherwise condemned for reasons beyond my control, and I was not compensated for the equity I’ve built up in this place. THAT would be “statism” in my book. And if that were to happen to me I’d be homeless unless my relatives were to take me in.

By the same token, tax-paying citizens generally expect services from their government, and I can’t see that government officials can arbitrarily choose to not provide those services.

In a just world, we would round up the original developers and make them repay the homeowners, but I doubt that’s going to happen.

Seems to me the people in these areas need to weigh options decide what they want government to do. See also Doug Hughes in comment #7.

While impact fees may well be significant for new developments on the outskirts of cities like Missoula, Hamilton, Bozeman, or Helena, research indicates fees are often not significant enough to pay for all eventual costs to cities. As more and more people come into new developments the city is faced with problems they previously did not have to address (as an example, when enough people go to the outskirts of a town, children will need bus routes to take them to school, these new residents will all live far away from typical day - to - day stops like grocery stores and restaurants, meaning they will have to drive to those places, meaning previously small roads will have to be expanded to deal with increased traffic, I could go on).

The expenses these developments put on local governments are not matched by impact fees. Alas, this is the pattern of development of any US city and is mandated by our zoning laws, until America is willing to come to terms with our poor zoning laws we will never be able to reduce our ecological footprints, or, perhaps more precisely, decrease the likelihood of living close to forest fires.

There’s something wrong (by my standards) but I can’t quite figure it out. Maybe it’s that you really do look to government as the source of all things good and bad. I can’t pin it down but maybe your seeming wish to rely on government doesn’t strike me (and I have many years experience in and out of government) as practical or wise. And the problem crosses party lines.

If you want to talk about lack of respect for the ordinary person’s real property, look into Democratic opposition to anti-Kelo eminent domain legislation. It’s sickening and has no basis in real urban planning needs but only in government convenience. Such statist attitudes in both parties are part of the problem — the knee-jerk reliance on a government solution to everything., which you seem to endorse.

However when I have built, there have been a variety of usage and impact fees - BIG ones. The local goverernment is not shy about collecting their take - up fromt - pre construction - and if no warning was issued BEFORE development - they have an OBLIGATION to the people who have their lives tied up in those homes, not just as an investment but for the personal, irreplaceble items that make a home a totally different animal from a house.

Somewhere there is a common sense zone of demarcation.

And wasn’t it the Sagebrush Rebellion types who demanded the tree-hugging environmentalists get out of the way of property owners’ and developers’ rights?

I’m sure you are right that much land was developed that shouldn’t have been developed, and it was a mistake for government to step aside and let this happen. Perhaps government should acknowledge the mistake, condemn the property, and help people relocate.