A buddy downstate emailed me this study, noting one other blogger already has written about it.  His point; there’s a temptation to simply do what generates surplus income for the municipality.If Champaign follows the trends illuminated by the study, they will become a city of high end single family home, high end apartments, and national big box stores.

Would a logical pathway for DG see the CBD and Ogden Avenue taken over by national chains, as they generate (downstate, at least) more sales tax surplus per 1,000 square feet than do local businesses?    See Naperville.

There would be less talk of more middle income, affordable, insert-your-favorite-catchphrase-here types of homes, only high end single family homes and downtown apartments.  Surprisingly, attached homes like the high density townhouses currently languishing unsold around DG (especially downtown), would be cut back; they have a net cost instead of providing a net surplus of revenues.

Note to village: Champaign also plans to raise developer fees across the board to help balance their budget.

Pointing out the obvious, the reason high end homes make money for the muni is any given sized family tends to impose the same level of expenses on a muni whether they live in an  expensive $1-million-plus home or a $300 thousand modest home, yet the real estate tax based revenues make the big home owner pay well over three times more.  The cost burden on the library, schools, police, fire, etc. are about the same.

But without that imbalance, DG would be up the creek like every other western ‘burb.  We need our expensive homes with their expensive RE tax bills, and generally speaking, most owners of the big expensive homes can afford the burden.