Proposed transfer tax adds an element of fairness to growth

To the editor: While reasonably couched, builder Luke Regier’s Oct. 20 “My Turn” regarding the proposed transfer tax deftly sidesteps an important point. Of course we all, the Builders Association included, support preservation of open space. He states that it is the funding mechanism that should be questioned and that it shouldn’t be focused on a few (home and land buyers), but borne by all. About half the states, but not New York, have legislation enabling localities to impose impact fees on new development because such development requires infrastructure and services, the cost of which is otherwise borne by all, since new housing almost never pays its own way in this regard. Absent state-wide impact fee legislation, it’s reasonable that a fraction of such costs be imposed on home buyers via a transfer tax - that it may impact those who are up - or downsizing is less an indictment of the tax than of the absence of a general impact fee for new construction. Builders and realtors always oppose impact fees but also argue it both ways - no impact fees but transfer taxes are also unfair! Hmm. But the property owner could reasonably ask: “Why should my taxes go up because of the hundreds of homes being built in my town?” The cost of new housing is shared by existing home owners as their taxes increase to provide infrastructure and services to these new homes. Is this somehow fairer than impact fees and/or transfer taxes? Without general impact fees, a transfer tax is the next-best and fairest way to address this problem. John Arbo Warwick