Curbing sprawl by making developers pay for the utility lines
I’m surprised no one has thought of that before. In fact, I didn’t know that the costs were shifted over to those who already had utilities! (But it makes sense, based on the leech-sucking nature of the whole builder enterprise in this state.)
I am convinced, that if new projects in the far suburbs were “fully costed”, that is to say, that all the indirect costs of development (school space, traffic, buying into existing public amenities) were applied to projects, they would no longer be profitable to the builders.
The game of theirs for the past several decades has been to cajole the Legislature into avoiding that very issue. Some in the Legislature are working on it, but you see very little press—and screaming howls anytime something like the “BIG map” appears that will materially change the game . . .