Dilworth Projects (Kenilworth, Morehead, East)

[kermit]

16 minutes ago, JacksonH said:

Why not?  I love that I don't have to worry about my tax bill going up every year.  My property value has soared but I'm paying basically the same property tax I paid when I bought the house in 2010.  Retired people can't deal with their tax bill soaring.

Without wading in to the argument I will offer that CharMeck offers a homestead exemption for folks over 65 or disabled that provides a 50% reduction in taxable value.  I think these taxes are indefinitely deferred rather than forgiven, and there is a (relatively low) income eligibility limit.

https://www.mecknc.gov/AssessorsOffice/Pages/Tax-Exclusions-Deferrals.aspx

 

[slipperypete]

1 hour ago, JBS said:

That's the literal definition of gentrification.  Ask the residents of lesser means who want to stay if they agree with you.  They either are paying significantly higher rents or property taxes and many are forced to move as a result. 

Besides, why does the value of your house have anything to do with what neighbors want in their neighborhood?

I would be with them for projects inside the neighborhood. But their opposition for mid and high rise development along 3rd and 4th streets was ludicrous. That kind of thing hurts their credibility. 

[Richhamleigh, DC]

3 hours ago, TheRealClayton said:

Oh god PhillyDog... I live in NoDa and a local developer with a cherished local architect wants to put 211 microunits and 11,000 square feet of micro retail (for small businesses not chains), that could technically be considered 80% AMI (yes they are small, but they are affordable for single cops, firefighters, nurses, and experienced teachers), and they are going apecrap in my neighborhood. 

Exactly -- on the one side, the very same people whining about greenhouse gas, forests and farms being lost to sprawl, lack of access to economic, education, and other opportunities, etc., are fighting density and redevelopment; on the other, people who say they are fiscally conservative, for individual choice, "people not working", etc., fight maximizing existing infrastructure, mixed use and transit, and support a definite lack of choice in housing.

In any case, IMHO, the kinds of things happening in Charlotte (and Raleigh, Asheville, WS, GSO, and Durham, etc.) is what should be happening to address the concerns of BOTH sides of the political spectrum.  The new medical school  and innovation district will bring huge opportunities to people -- accessible by transit, walking, and car  to a maximum number of people.  We need more of the development pie to happen in existing areas of development:  vacant, underutilized lots, should be reused and maximized. 

As far as neighborhoods are concerned, cities change -- it's part of human evolution.  It's not ok for an urban neighborhood to change; is growth static?  Not here.  Because it's not, growth is going to occur somewhere.  The question  (to me) is where is it most efficient and where can you get the most value from it.  If a neighborhood inside a city doesn't want change, are they going to fight to protect the rural landscape enjoyed by residents there?   When change and growth slow, will be able to look at this period of time and be proud of what was accomplished?  Are our towns and cities, and rural landscapes better or worse, just mediocre?  Are we squandering the opportunity now while growth is happening, to build the places that will weather time?   These are my questions.  

Edited December 2, 2021 by Phillydog

[kermit]

^ Well said.

NIMBYs should be forced to acknowledge that any protest against increased density is climate arson. 

Edited December 3, 2021 by kermit

[Richhamleigh, DC]

4 minutes ago, kermit said:

^ Well said.

NIMBY should be forced to acknowledge that any protest against increased density in or near their hoods is climate arson.

I could not have said it better.  "Climate arson" -- 

[videtur quam contuor]

My mother-in-law, bless her departed soul, had a homestead exemption on her home where she lived for 47 years. It allowed her to remain there with the assistance of her children for some repairs and yardwork (Me).

[KJHburg]

NC provides low income seniors with a 50% tax cut of their assessment (by local authorities) if they meet certain income requirements.  

this problems has been around for years

Mecklenburg County, city of Charlotte offering tax relief to seniors – WSOC TV

part of the problem in many intown neighborhoods is that people are long term renters.  So your landlord decides to sell and that is why we need to encourage home ownership in this community even with those of modest means. 

[TheOneRJ]

Thought something new was announced. 

[JacksonH]

9 hours ago, kermit said:

Without wading in to the argument I will offer that CharMeck offers a homestead exemption for folks over 65 or disabled that provides a 50% reduction in taxable value.  I think these taxes are indefinitely deferred rather than forgiven, and there is a (relatively low) income eligibility limit.

https://www.mecknc.gov/AssessorsOffice/Pages/Tax-Exclusions-Deferrals.aspx

 

That sounds like a good thing, but the Prop 13 deal here is for every homeowner, regardless of age.  Once you purchase your home your tax base is locked in for good.  (And there are some protections that allow you to move one or two times and not be impacted )  If I were to move to NC and purchase a home of equal value to my home here, my property tax bill would double.

[TGIBridays]

5 hours ago, JacksonH said:

That sounds like a good thing, but the Prop 13 deal here is for every homeowner, regardless of age.  Once you purchase your home your tax base is locked in for good.  (And there are some protections that allow you to move one or two times and not be impacted )  If I were to move to NC and purchase a home of equal value to my home here, my property tax bill would double.

I get how that's helpful for owners... but... How does that help fund the city and all the needed infrastructure? Locking in tax base would discourage growth while inflating the purchase value of the property (since having a low tax burden would mean it's more valuable to the owner), I would think.  This doesn't seem like a good way to grow a city.  The homestead exemption makes more sense to me since it helps out those who really need it, while not completely hampering the growth of the city's funds. I don't know if we should be looking to California for housing policy. It's not like the housing crisis is any better in California (in most CA cities it's much worse). 

[videtur quam contuor]

17 hours ago, kermit said:

Without wading in to the argument I will offer that CharMeck offers a homestead exemption for folks over 65 or disabled that provides a 50% reduction in taxable value.  I think these taxes are indefinitely deferred rather than forgiven, and there is a (relatively low) income eligibility limit.

https://www.mecknc.gov/AssessorsOffice/Pages/Tax-Exclusions-Deferrals.aspx

 

My wife and her siblings were the inheritors of the home from their mother after her death. There was no deferred tax payable at that time. If this is normal, standard, expected, or legal I cannot say. The estate was handled privately and not through probate as the assets were limited, as one would expect, and thus easy to resolve without accountant or lawyer.

Edit: The sibling who handled the financial affairs of the estate, such as it was, says no tax, straight exemption at that time, 2005.

Edited December 3, 2021 by tarhoosier

[carolinaboy]

1 hour ago, TGIBridays said:

I get how that's helpful for owners... but... How does that help fund the city and all the needed infrastructure? Locking in tax base would discourage growth while inflating the purchase value of the property (since having a low tax burden would mean it's more valuable to the owner), I would think.  This doesn't seem like a good way to grow a city.  The homestead exemption makes more sense to me since it helps out those who really need it, while not completely hampering the growth of the city's funds. I don't know if we should be looking to California for housing policy. It's not like the housing crisis is any better in California (in most CA cities it's much worse). 

This was my general thought that I couldn't articulate. Thanks.

[ertley]

9 hours ago, JacksonH said:

That sounds like a good thing, but the Prop 13 deal here is for every homeowner, regardless of age.  Once you purchase your home your tax base is locked in for good.  (And there are some protections that allow you to move one or two times and not be impacted )  If I were to move to NC and purchase a home of equal value to my home here, my property tax bill would double.

I have read, of course, about the many downsides of Proposition 13, but some part of me still thinks that locking in a tax rate based upon purchase price and not assessed value is the most equitable thing to do. Why should only folks over 65 be given an exemption or remediation? Of course I understand why retired people deserve it, but what about working class people who are gentrified (and I HATE the over use and -reliance upon that word) or price escalated out of their own neighborhoods? Making everyone pay a rate based upon assessed value exacerbates income inequality in a very, very direct way: People who have lived in neighborhoods the longest--and by any measure, but especially that one, deserve to be able to remain there--find themselves with less and less disposable income every year, if they're not part of the banking elite or whatever group constitutes the gentrifiers (again, ugh) in their neighborhoods.  

There's no perfect solution to this, I realize, and I'm not actually seriously arguing for action here, just expressing my thoughts, but at least theoretically, though, I think a having everyone pay the same rate, but calculated upon the purchase price, for primary residences (only) helps with a lot of problems discussed on here: displacement due to gentrification, income inequality, etc. In a stagnant or declining city this wouldn't work, obviously, but in a city that's growing like Charlotte, there are enough new people moving in to town and buying houses, and folks trading up, to provide a still solid tax base upon current property values. A lot of people still are also going to take the option of cashing out when they get a good offer for redevelopment; it's going to be a very specific type of person who refuses to sell just to avoid higher property taxes and missing out on a huge cash windfall or profit (and I realize there are more of those people than you'd think).

I would recommend a thorough examination of California's (and other similar) laws and finding ways of avoiding as many of their pratfalls through very specific legislation, if any area were seriously considering such a schema, though.

This belongs in the political thread, so I'll keep this as brief as possible: I think a chronic problem that 'progressives' (cough cough) make is continually relying upon exemptions and carve outs to try and balance the system, but never fundamentally address or attack the system itself, which creates problems politically twofold: Only those benefitting from the exemptions appreciate it (and limit the political as well as advocacy benefits), and such an ad hoc, add on system increasingly complicates the tax system and creates even more animosity towards it in general. I am a big, big fan of trying to always create as many (as practicable) simplified, universal changes in tax codes as possible, and not an endless series of special conditions and exemptions that 1) individuals must become aware of and 2) have to make special efforts to benefit from, which can make even their beneficiaries exasperated.         

Just my 22 cents!

[RANYC]

1 hour ago, ertley said:

I have read, of course, about the many downsides of Proposition 13, but some part of me still thinks that locking in a tax rate based upon purchase price and not assessed value is the most equitable thing to do. Why should only folks over 65 be given an exemption or remediation? Of course I understand why retired people deserve it, but what about working class people who are gentrified (and I HATE the over use and -reliance upon that word) or price escalated out of their own neighborhoods? Making everyone pay a rate based upon assessed value exacerbates income inequality in a very, very direct way: People who have lived in neighborhoods the longest--and by any measure, but especially that one, deserve to be able to remain there--find themselves with less and less disposable income every year, if they're not part of the banking elite or whatever group constitutes the gentrifiers (again, ugh) in their neighborhoods.  

There's no perfect solution to this, I realize, and I'm not actually seriously arguing for action here, just expressing my thoughts, but at least theoretically, though, I think a having everyone pay the same rate, but calculated upon the purchase price, for primary residences (only) helps with a lot of problems discussed on here: displacement due to gentrification, income inequality, etc. In a stagnant or declining city this wouldn't work, obviously, but in a city that's growing like Charlotte, there are enough new people moving in to town and buying houses, and folks trading up, to provide a still solid tax base upon current property values. A lot of people still are also going to take the option of cashing out when they get a good offer for redevelopment; it's going to be a very specific type of person who refuses to sell just to avoid higher property taxes and missing out on a huge cash windfall or profit (and I realize there are more of those people than you'd think).

I would recommend a thorough examination of California's (and other similar) laws and finding ways of avoiding as many of their pratfalls through very specific legislation, if any area were seriously considering such a schema, though.

This belongs in the political thread, so I'll keep this as brief as possible: I think a chronic problem that 'progressives' (cough cough) make is continually relying upon exemptions and carve outs to try and balance the system, but never fundamentally address or attack the system itself, which creates problems politically twofold: Only those benefitting from the exemptions appreciate it (and limit the political as well as advocacy benefits), and such an ad hoc, add on system increasingly complicates the tax system and creates even more animosity towards it in general. I am a big, big fan of trying to always create as many (as practicable) simplified, universal changes in tax codes as possible, and not an endless series of special conditions and exemptions that 1) individuals must become aware of and 2) have to make special efforts to benefit from, which can make even their beneficiaries exasperated.         

Just my 22 cents!

Not a lawyer, but I can generally get behind this, although might have to think a bit more on whether assessed values should be frozen for anyone else BESIDES individual owner-occupied dwellings.  Should they be frozen for commercial operators, maybe even someone using her/his dwelling as a rental/rentals oras an airbnb property.

Edited December 3, 2021 by RANYC

[JacksonH]

6 hours ago, ertley said:

I have read, of course, about the many downsides of Proposition 13, but some part of me still thinks that locking in a tax rate based upon purchase price and not assessed value is the most equitable thing to do. Why should only folks over 65 be given an exemption or remediation? Of course I understand why retired people deserve it, but what about working class people who are gentrified (and I HATE the over use and -reliance upon that word) or price escalated out of their own neighborhoods? Making everyone pay a rate based upon assessed value exacerbates income inequality in a very, very direct way: People who have lived in neighborhoods the longest--and by any measure, but especially that one, deserve to be able to remain there--find themselves with less and less disposable income every year, if they're not part of the banking elite or whatever group constitutes the gentrifiers (again, ugh) in their neighborhoods.  

There's no perfect solution to this, I realize, and I'm not actually seriously arguing for action here, just expressing my thoughts, but at least theoretically, though, I think a having everyone pay the same rate, but calculated upon the purchase price, for primary residences (only) helps with a lot of problems discussed on here: displacement due to gentrification, income inequality, etc. In a stagnant or declining city this wouldn't work, obviously, but in a city that's growing like Charlotte, there are enough new people moving in to town and buying houses, and folks trading up, to provide a still solid tax base upon current property values. A lot of people still are also going to take the option of cashing out when they get a good offer for redevelopment; it's going to be a very specific type of person who refuses to sell just to avoid higher property taxes and missing out on a huge cash windfall or profit (and I realize there are more of those people than you'd think).

I would recommend a thorough examination of California's (and other similar) laws and finding ways of avoiding as many of their pratfalls through very specific legislation, if any area were seriously considering such a schema, though.

This belongs in the political thread, so I'll keep this as brief as possible: I think a chronic problem that 'progressives' (cough cough) make is continually relying upon exemptions and carve outs to try and balance the system, but never fundamentally address or attack the system itself, which creates problems politically twofold: Only those benefitting from the exemptions appreciate it (and limit the political as well as advocacy benefits), and such an ad hoc, add on system increasingly complicates the tax system and creates even more animosity towards it in general. I am a big, big fan of trying to always create as many (as practicable) simplified, universal changes in tax codes as possible, and not an endless series of special conditions and exemptions that 1) individuals must become aware of and 2) have to make special efforts to benefit from, which can make even their beneficiaries exasperated.         

Just my 22 cents!

I want to point out that Prop 13 was enacted back in the '70s, a time when California leaned Republican, so it probably wasn't created by "progressives."  Of course being Republican meant very different things back then.  And yes there are downsides to Prop 13.  For example, once when I was out for a walk I spotted a mansion with tennis courts and a swimming pool.  I was very curious about it and looked it up online and found out that the same owners have been living there for forty-some years, and so I was quite annoyed to realize that they're paying lower property taxes than I pay for my VERY modest home.

5 hours ago, RANYC said:

Not a lawyer, but I can generally get behind this, although might have to think a bit more on whether assessed values should be frozen for anyone else BESIDES individual owner-occupied dwellings.  Should they be frozen for commercial operators, maybe even someone using her/his dwelling as a rental/rentals oras an airbnb property.

Not sure but I think this is only for residential owners, and the residence at least initially must be owner occupied.

[videtur quam contuor]

Not a Dilworth project but a favorite property of mine. Currently and recently for sale: 400 East Kingston, the Mallonee-Jones house.

https://www.carolinahome.com/home/3795326

http://landmarkscommission.org/2016/12/15/mallonee-jones-house/

Mr Mallonee was a contractor and millwork provider and used this house as an advertisement for his wares. The interior and exterior is a paean to our favorite material, wood, and nothing says luxury as wood textures and finishes. Sunburst motif over front door is a distinguishing feature of the home. Queen Anne style which is a mixture of other architectural styles into a defining whole. When I moved to Dilworth at 301 E Kingston the second owner and resident of this home, Cora Jones, had just passed at age 100. I have been in the house, as has another person on this board when it was mentioned some time ago. It was on MLS a few years ago but did not sell. Of note: The rightmost photo of the first row of photos shows a narrow entry to a hall about shoulder width. This is a servant passageway that extends from the rear of the kitchen with entries to the dining room and front room. The servant could thus pass without disturbing the occupants of either of the rooms. There was, likely still is due to the care of the historic features, a call system in the kitchen whereby occupants of rooms in three levels could summon assistance. (Now that I look closely at the kitchen photos I do not see the call system.) There is nothing regular or ordinary about this home. It fully earns the historic status it carries. Transoms for internal doorways for light and ventilation. Close the door and open the above door transom and air can circulate. My Dilworth house, circa 1910, had these on the bed- and bathrooms. Look at all that wood, a riot of styles. Even the hearths appear to have survived intact. From regular use these tiles often were cracked from wood dropped on them or coal scuttles heavy with coal. Enjoy!

[KJHburg]

^^^   and now under contract as of Nov. 11 it is indeed a beautiful home.

[Owenorange]

On 12/2/2021 at 2:15 PM, Blue_Devil said:

That argument held weight 10 years ago. Not when houses in Cherry and Elizabeth are going for 800 - 1.5 Mil

Which projects being shut down specifically are you referencing for Elizabeth? We welcomed four story Draper Place luxury apartments on Randolph Rd on formally abandoned fields. We worked to ensure sufficient parking for the new Crescent building bringing office and retail to 7th and Caswell so that it wouldn’t create spillover parking in the immediately adjacent residential streets. We asked for some height and setback accommodations with the developers that are turning the previous affordable Martha Washington apartments into 100+ townhomes at $650K and up. But we said yes to all those densification projects. I can’t think of one within the boundary of Elizabeth that was shut down by the ECA in the last 6 years since we have lived here. 

[deleted account]

12 hours ago, Owenorange said:

Which projects being shut down specifically are you referencing for Elizabeth? We welcomed four story Draper Place luxury apartments on Randolph Rd on formally abandoned fields. We worked to ensure sufficient parking for the new Crescent building bringing office and retail to 7th and Caswell so that it wouldn’t create spillover parking in the immediately adjacent residential streets. We asked for some height and setback accommodations with the developers that are turning the previous affordable Martha Washington apartments into 100+ townhomes at $650K and up. But we said yes to all those densification projects. I can’t think of one within the boundary of Elizabeth that was shut down by the ECA in the last 6 years since we have lived here. 

Exactly right. And it's why this already fantastic neighborhood just keeps getting better and better. 

[CLTdev18]

On 12/1/2021 at 5:48 PM, QCxpat said:

Today 11:30 a.m. - 1701 East Boulevard, up to 19 townhomes along Lombardy Circle  & up to 332 apartments in 4 buildings along East Blvd., Jim Gross Dev. Co.

 

 

Do you have a siteplan for this? I've been hearing about the townhomes and apartments as well, but It's not currently zoned for that. From what I can see, you could get some office on that site and at most 21 residential units. And there's no active rezoning. Just curious what the plan is

[atlrvr]

I believe PED overlay allows for significantly higher density than underlying zoning.

[NYtoCLT]

On 12/4/2021 at 8:30 PM, Owenorange said:

Which projects being shut down specifically are you referencing for Elizabeth? We welcomed four story Draper Place luxury apartments on Randolph Rd on formally abandoned fields. We worked to ensure sufficient parking for the new Crescent building bringing office and retail to 7th and Caswell so that it wouldn’t create spillover parking in the immediately adjacent residential streets. We asked for some height and setback accommodations with the developers that are turning the previous affordable Martha Washington apartments into 100+ townhomes at $650K and up. But we said yes to all those densification projects. I can’t think of one within the boundary of Elizabeth that was shut down by the ECA in the last 6 years since we have lived here. 

Well, the 7th and Caswell was only after the lot was vacant for a few years because the ECA killed the prior project (partially because it was residential).  

[TheRealClayton]

21 hours ago, atlrvr said:

I believe PED overlay allows for significantly higher density than underlying zoning.

Correct. Dilworth's PED Overlay allows for more urban uses, and supersedes underlying zoning. 

[SydneyCarton]

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/development/article256449281.html

Edited December 10, 2021 by SydneyCarton

[CLT2014]

With the redevelopment across the street, hopefully this means the end of that parking lot (and maybe even the whole building coming down). So short for what is becoming a rapidly urbanizing part of the city.

Edited December 10, 2021 by CLT2014