Paying for Growth

I found John Koenig’s commentary on the pitfalls of Florida’s “concurrency” provision (“A Lesson Worth Heeding in San Diego,” Sept. 9) fascinating. Like Florida, the San Diego City Council is considering concurrency--the requirement that public facilities for new development be available on a timely basis--as a solution to our growth management woes.

It seems that the Florida voters resent having to foot the bill for facilities to support new development, as well they should. It is unfair to expect existing residents to subsidize the cost of growth. The lesson to be learned from the Florida experience is that concurrency requirements without a way to pay for them results in stalemate.

The planned growth ordinance before the City Council addresses the missing element of the Florida provision: a way to finance the true cost of growth. It states that not only must public facilities be available concurrent with new development, but they must be paid for by developer impact fees.

San Diegans should not be expected to continue to bear the burden of growth through higher fees and inadequate services.

STEPHINE FOREMAN

El Cajon