The recent article about impact fees (Herald, July 25) seems obvious.
Of course, growth should pay its own way, particularly with the increase in second homes in the area. I can’t think of a single good reason area residents should subsidize a part-time resident’s vacation home.
Unfortunately, it does increase the cost of housing, but I’m sure there could be a sliding scale devised so a tiny home or low-income housing unit are assessed an impact fee that is proportionately smaller than the “monster house on the hill’s” impact fee.
Every election, nearly every candidate is for “smart growth.” The subject generally disappears in the interim, but these and other impact fees are within my definition of smart growth.
Dave Linden
Durango
