|
| This is accurate. Technically, if you had a plot of farmland and the choice was between a solar farm and a residential housing development, the solar project would be a clear winner in a head to head tax revenues match up.
The solar project would require ZERO town/county/state services, and cost the taxpayers nothing. They need no sewage service, water, or trash pickup. They can be self-contained and self-sufficient. Usually, there would be a significant uptick in the property tax assessment leading to increased revenue for the municipality and or county and state.
Respectively (and I have seen the studies/reports that back this up), even if you dropped a bunch of houses and put big tax assessments on them in residential development, the net end result is usually, almost always a net negative to the municipality or community. Residential development requires services. Trash pickup, mail delivery, road maintenance, recycling, sewage, city water, and the doozy, all those kids need god knows how much per head to get an education. all those expenses add up and usually something else is subsidizing those community members (i.e. commercial taxe revenue).
I am not knocking residential development, but the math on this is pretty clear. I know it may not be public common knowledge at this point, but being in the industry I can attest to this situation's accuracy. That being said, each location could be different and have something causing this to tilt in either direction. But typically a renewable project is starting from a much better position. | |
|
Solar panels
